Effects of a 4-Week Youth Baseball Conditioning Program on Throwing Velocity

8/10/2019 Effects of a 4-Week Youth Baseball Conditioning Program on Throwing Velocity

1/8

E FFECTS OF A 4-W EEK Y OUTH B ASEBALL

C ONDITIONING P ROGRAM ON THROWING V ELOCITY R AFAEL F. E SCAMILLA ,1 G LENN S. F LEISIG ,2 K YLE Y AMASHIRO ,3 T ONY M IKLA ,3 R USSELL D UNNING ,3L ONNIE P AULOS ,1 AND J AMES R. A NDREWS 1,21 Andrews-Paulos Research and Education Institute, Gulf Breeze, Florida; 2 American Sports Medicine Institute, Birmingham, Alabama; and 3 Results Physical Therapy and Training Center, Sacramento, California

A BSTRACT

Escamilla, RF, Fleisig, GS, Yamashiro, K, Mikla, T, Dunning, R,Paulos, L, and Andrews, JR. Effects of a 4-week youth baseballconditioning program on throwing velocity. J Strength Cond Res 24(X): 000000, 2010Effects of a 4-week youth baseball

conditioning program on throwing velocity. This study examinedthe effects of a 4-week youth baseball conditioning program onmaximum throwing velocity. Thirty-four youth baseball players(1115 years of age) were randomly and equally divided intocontrol and training groups. The training group performed3 sessions (each 75 minutes) weekly for 4 weeks, whichcomprised a sport specic warm-up, resistance training withelastic tubing, a throwing program, and stretching. Throwingvelocity was assessed initially and at the end of the 4-week conditioning program for both control and training groups. Thelevel of signicance used was p , 0.05. After the 4-week conditioning program, throwing velocity increased signicantly(from 25.1 6 2.8 to 26.1 6 2.8 m s2 1 ) in the training group butdid not signicantly increase in the control group (from 24.2 6

3.6 to 24.0 6 3.9 m s2 1 ). These results demonstrate that theshort-term 4-week baseball conditioning program was effectivein increasing throwing velocity in youth baseball players.Increased throwing velocity may be helpful for pitchers (lesstime for hitters to swing) and position players (decreased timefor a runner to advance to the next base).

K EY W ORDS resistance training, little league, ball velocity

I NTRODUCTION

Of the roughly 2.5 million baseball players in theUSA, approximately 80% participate in the 14and under youth leagues, and another 1520%participateat thehigh school youth level (3). Less

than 1% of all baseball players are at the collegiate or

professional levels (3). With approximately 99% of baseballplayers participating in youth and high school leagues, it isimportant for strength and conditioning specialists to beknowledgeable in performance enhancement and training inyouth (under 18 years of age) baseball players.

There are limited studies that have investigated the effectsof resistance training programs in youth baseball players onbaseball performance variables. Szymanski et al. (11,13)investigated the effects of a 12-week periodized training program, largely comprising wrist and forearm training, onbat velocity in high school baseball players. Szymanski et al.(10,12) investigated a 12-week medicine ball, torso rotationtraining, and a stepwise periodized resistance training program with bat swings on bat velocity and torso rotationaland sequential hiptorsoarm rotational strength. Woodenet al. (15) investigated the effects of a 5-week resistancetraining program in teenage baseball players consisting of isolated shoulder internal and external rotation exercises onshoulder internal and external rotation shoulder torque andthrowing velocity. However, there are no known studies that

have investigated the effects of a baseball-specic condition-ing program on throwing velocity in youth baseball players.One component of performance enhancement in baseball

is throwing velocity. For example, a pitcher with a goodfastball sets up other pitches that help fool the hitter, such asthe changeup and curveball. Throwing the fastball pitch withgreater throwing velocity allows less time for the batter toidentify the pitch and decide whether or not to swing.Therefore, a fastball pitch thrown with greater velocity isoften more difcult to hit compared to a fastball pitch thrownwith less velocity, assuming similar ball movement andlocation over the plate.

Throwing velocity is also important to positionplayers. Forexample, a ground ball softly hit to the short stop or thirdbaseman requires a hard throw with high velocity and

accuracy to throw out the runner. Similarly, an outeldertrying to throw out a base runner at home plate requires highthrowing velocity and accuracy. Throwing velocity mayincrease by improving throwing mechanics or by employing an effective baseball conditioning program, which canenhance muscular strength and power. Although severalstudies have analyzed the throwing mechanics in youth

Address correspondence to Rafael F. Escamilla, [email protected].

0(0)/18 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association

VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | MONTH 2010 | 1

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited


2/8


3/8

Figure 1. A, B) Elbow extension.

Figure 2. A, B) Arm extension.

Figure 3. A, B) Chest y (horizontal adduction).

Figure 4. A, B) Rowing.


Journal of Strength and Conditioning Researchthe TM

| www.nsca-jscr.org



4/8

Figure 5. A, B) Internal rotation with shoulder exed 90 .

Figure 6. A, B) External rotation with shoulder exed 90 .

Figure 7. A, B) Internal rotation with shoulder abducted 0 .

Figure 8. A, B) Internal rotation with shoulder abducted 90 .

4 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Researchthe TM

Four-Week Baseball Conditioning Program



5/8


6/8

to perform each exercise with proper form and technique anduse enough resistance for each exercise that allowed them toperform 2025 repetitions but no more. The subjects adjustedthe tension in the MVP Band tubing to accommodate their

improvements in muscular strength throughout the 4-week duration.The next 30 minutes consisted of a distance-based interval

throwing long toss program, which has been shown to beeffective in enhancing throwing performance in youthbaseball players (1). After a 5-minute warm-up throwing ata 50-ft distance, each subject performed pivot throws with anarc (no step allowed) for 15 minutes (60-ft throws for5 minutes, 75-ft throws for 5 minutes, and 100-ft throws for5 minutes). Subsequently, each subject performed long tossthrows with an arc (1 step allowed) for 10 minutes (100-ftthrows for 5 minutes and 125-ft throws and beyond for5 minutes). Subjects 1315 years of age ended their throwing by performing 5 hard throws at 150 ft, 5 hard throws at 125 ft,and 5 hard throws at 100 ft. Subjects 1112 years of age

ended their throwing by performing 5 hard throws at 100 ft,5 hard throws at 75 ft, and 5 hard throws at 50 ft. The nal5 minutes of the program consisted of shoulder externalrotation stretches, which consisted of 15 repetitions for eacharm for external rotation at 0 shoulder abduction, externalrotation at 90 shoulder abduction, and external rotation at0 shoulder exion.

Throwing Velocity Assessment. Assessment of throwing velocitywasperformedfor allsubjects at ResultsPhysicalTherapyandTraining Center (Sacramento, CA, USA) 2 days before thestart of thebaseball conditioning program (pretest) and2 days

after the completion of the baseball conditioning program(posttest). All subjects were tested at approximately the sametime in the afternoon or evening during both the pretest andposttest. All subjects were instructed to be well rested andhydrated before testing, and not have eaten any food at least 2hours before testing. After approximately 5 minutes of a general warm-up consisting of walking, lunging, step-updrills to a box, and stretching, and approximately 5 minutes of light to moderate effort throwing, the throwing velocity of each subject was then assessed. Each subject threw overhandfrom at ground at maximal effort to a target positioned atapproximately chest level and 13.7 m away. Subjects startedwith both feet on a line and were then allowed to take onestride toward the target as they threw the ball. Throwing velocity was recorded from a calibrated Jugs Tribar Sportradar gun (Jugs Pitching Machine Company, Tualatin, OR,USA) as the ball left the pitchers hand and was accuratewithin 0.22 m s2 1 . Five maximum effort-throwing trials wereperformed and recorded. Approximately 30 seconds of rest wasprovided between all throwing trials to prevent muscular fatiguefrom occurring.

Questionnaire. During the posttest, subjects in the training group completed a questionnaire asking their satisfaction withthe conditioning program, and their perception of how theconditioning program affected their throwing velocity. Thequestionnaire given to thetraining groupasked them if they feltthe conditioning program did not help, may have helped,probably helped, or denitely helped increase throwing velocity. Subjects in the control group and training group alsocompleted a posttest questionnaire answering questionsregarding what activities and sports they participated in during the 4-week period between the pretest and posttest.

Statistical AnalysesDependent t -tests were used assess signicant differences inthrowing velocity between pretest and posttest throwing velocity measurements in the control group and in thetraining group. Independent t -tests were also used to assesssignicant differences in age, mass, and height betweencontrol and training groups. The level of signicance usedwas p # 0.05.

R ESULTS

There were no signicant differences in age, mass, and height

comparisons between control and training groups. Mean(6 SD ) throwing velocity comparisons between pretest andposttest measurements for the control and training groups areshown in Table 1. In the training group, throwing velocity wassignicantly greater after the conditioning program (posttestmeasurements) compared to before the conditioning program(pretest measurements), whereas in the control group, there

Figure 13. A, B) Standard forward throw.





7/8

were no signicant differences between pre and posttestthrowing velocity measurements.

All subjects in the training group did not miss any training sessions, except 2 subjects, who missed 1 session, demon-strating excellent compliance with the training program.Moreover, allsubjects in thetraining group were satised withthe conditioning program. Approximately80% of the training group subjects responded to the questionnaire by saying theyfelt the conditioning program denitely helped increase theirthrowing velocity, whereas the remaining 20% of the subjectssaid the conditioning program may have helped or probablyhelped increase their throwing velocity.

D ISCUSSION

As hypothesized, throwing velocity increased in the training group after the 4-week baseball conditioning program. Theseresults demonstrate that even a short-term conditioning program can result in increased throwing velocity in youthbaseball players. Because youth are often involved in multiplesports and activities, and often have a shorter attention span

compared to older athletes, a short-term baseball conditioning program may be an attractive alternative compared to a longerduration program (e.g., 1012 weeks), especially because theresults of this study demonstrate that baseball performancevariables can be enhanced in a short-term program.

The improvement in ball velocitymay have been affectedbyboth the training intensity and training volume, and moreresearch is needed in thisarea. The resistancetrainingprogramin this study involved employing moderate intensity ratherthan high intensity, the latter being more conducive inmaximizing strength gain (9). However, it was important thatthe young subjects in this study be able to perform eachresistance exercise with proper form and technique, and ina controlled manner, and higher intensity training maycompromise proper form and technique in youth (4).Moreover, it is common when using elastic tubing forresistance training to use lower to moderate intensities withhigher number of repetitions, typically between 10 and 25repetitions (14), and high resistance training with lowerrepetitions is typically reserved for free weight or machineresistance training (9). Although the 1 set of 2025 repetitionsin this study was more conducive for maximizing muscular

endurance improvement and to a lesser extent improving muscularstrength(4,9), bothmuscularstrength and enduranceare important components to achieve for baseball players.Another reason high intensity was not employed in this studyis that performing high-intensity resistance training with lowrepetitions in prepubescent youth is not recommended (4),because this type of training may increase injury risk in youth.

Because throwing velocity improvement in youth maysimply occur from normal aging and maturation, it wasimportant to use a control group in the current. Certainschool activities, such as performing push-up and sit-ups inphysical education class, and extracurricular activities, such asparticipating in overhead throwing type sports, may affectthrowing velocitygains in youth, and these activities were notcontrolled in either the control or training groups. Given therandom assignment of the subjects within the 2 groups, andgiven that the baseball conditioning program the onlyvariable that differed between the groups, it can be concludedthat the conditioning program was the primary reason for theimprovement in throwing velocity in the training group,

especially given that the control group did not improve inthrowing velocity.Improvements in throwing velocity from resistance training

programs have been previously reported. Carter et al. (2)investigated the effects of 8 weeks of upper extremityplyometric training on isokinetic strength and throwing velocity in collegiate baseball players. Compared to a controlgroup that participated in off-season nonplyometric strengthand conditioning activities, a plyometric training groupexhibited signicantly greater throwing velocity at the endof the 8-week plyometric program (83.2 mph in pretraining vs.85.2 mph in posttraining). These authors concluded thatalthough both resistance training and plyometric training resulted in strength gains, only the plyometric training groupimproved their throwing velocity. These results are supportedby data from Grezios et al. (6), who reported that the stretch-shortening cycle, which is the foundation of plyometrictraining,is the typeof muscle contraction thatprimarilyoccursin overhead throwing, such as in throwing a baseball.

Wooden et al. (15) reported that youth who performeda 5-week resistance training program consisting of isolatedshoulder internal and external rotation exercises increased

TABLE 1. Mean 6 SD data are shown between pretest and posttest throwing velocity for the training ( n = 17) and control(n = 17) groups.

Group Pretest (m s2 1

) Posttest (m s2 1

) p-ValueThrowing velocity Training* 25.16 2.8 26.1 6 2.8 0.004

Control 24.2 6 3.6 24.0 6 3.9 0.209

*Signicant difference ( p , 0.05) between pretest and posttest.


Journal of Strength and Conditioning Researchthe TM

| www.nsca-jscr.org



8/8

throwing velocity by 2.06 mph. The 2- and2.06-mph increasesin throwing velocity reported by Carter et al. (2) and Woodenet al. (15), respectively, are similar to the 2.2-mph increase inthrowing velocity reported in this study. Although this study

demonstrated a throwing velocity increase in the training group, it is unknown which components of the baseballconditioning program (resistance training program or throw-ing program) was most inuential in producing the increasedthrowing velocity. Because the baseball conditioning programin the current combined warm-up, stretching, resistancetraining, and throwing, further research is needed in this area to determine the relative contribution of each of these training components with respect to increasing throwing velocity.

Future research should focus on comparing the effects of shorter duration (e.g., 46 weeks) vs. longer duration (e.g.,1012 weeks) conditioning programs to assess if longerduration conditioning programs result in greater increases inthrowing velocity compared to shorter duration conditioning programs. It should also be investigated whether youthsare ascompliant with a long-term conditioning program comparedto a shorter duration program, especially because youths areoften very active in both school and extracurricular activities.Future research is also needed in older postpubescent youth,such as those in high school, as the mean subject age of 12.5(1.5) years in this study primarily involved prepubescentyouth in junior high school.

P RACTICAL A PPLICATIONS

Theresultsof thisstudy demonstrate thata short-term baseballconditioning program is effective in enhancing throwing velocity in youth baseball players. In only 4 weeks, throwing velocity increased approximately 4% in the group thatparticipated in the baseball conditioning program but changed, 1% in the group that did not participate in the baseballconditioning program. Increased throwing velocity may behelpful for a pitcher, because the batter will have less time tomake a decision as to whetheror not to swing at the pitch, andmay help position players, such as a catcher, inelder, oroutelder trying to throw out a runner attempting to advanceto the next base.

A CKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Adel Aitali, AdamBeckenger, Jeff Blankenship, Rama Bowen, Wes Haven, andFallon Hookailo for their assistance during data collection.

R EFERENCES1. Axe, MJ, Snyder-Mackler, L, Konin, JG, and Strube, MJ. De-

velopment of a distance-based interval throwing program for LittleLeague-aged athletes. Am J Sports Med 24: 594602, 1996.

2. Carter, AB, Kaminski, TW, Douex, AT Jr, Knight, CA, and Richards, JG.Effects of high volume upper extremity plyometric training onthrowing velocity and functional strength ratios of the shoulderrotators in collegiate baseball players. J Strength Cond Res 21: 208215, 2007.

3. Conte, S, Requa, RK, and Garrick, JG. Disability days in major leaguebaseball. Am J Sports Med 29: 431436, 2001.

4. Faigenbaum, AD, Kraemer, WJ, Blimkie, CJ, Jeffreys, I, Micheli, LJ,Nitka, M, and Rowland, TW. Youth resistance training: updatedposition statement paper from the national strength and condi-tioning association. J Strength Cond Res 23: S60S79, 2009.

5. Fleisig, GS, Barrentine, SW, Zheng, N, Escamilla, RF, and Andrews, JR.Kinematic and kinetic comparison of baseball pitching among various levels of development. J Biomech 32: 13711375, 1999.

6. Grezios, AK, Gissis, IT, Sotiropoulos, AA, Nikolaidis, DV, andSouglis, AG. Muscle-contraction properties in overarm throwing movements. J Strength Cond Res 20: 117123, 2006.

7. Nissen, CW, Westwell, M, Ounpuu, S, Patel, M, Tate, JP, Pierz, K,

Burns, JP, and Bicos, J. Adolescent baseball pitching technique: Adetailed three-dimensional biomechanical analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39: 13471357, 2007.

8. Sabick, MB, Kim, YK, Torry, MR, Keirns, MA, and Hawkins, RJ.Biomechanics of the shoulder in youth baseball pitchers: implica-tions for the development of proximal humeral epiphysiolysis andhumeral retrotorsion. Am J Sports Med 33: 17161722, 2005.

9. Stone, MH, OBryant, HS, Garhammer, J, McMillan, J, and Rozenek, R.A theoretical model of strength training. NSCA J 4: 3640, 1982.

10. Szymanski, DJ, McIntyre, JS, Szymanski, JM, Bradford, TJ, Schade, RL,Madsen, NH, and Pascoe, DD. Effect of torso rotational strength onangular hip, angular shoulder, and linear bat velocities of high schoolbaseball players. J Strength Cond Res 21: 11171125, 2007.

11. Szymanski, DJ, McIntyre, JS, Szymanski, JM, Molloy, JM, Madsen, NH,and Pascoe, DD. Effect of wrist and forearm training on linear bat-end, center of percussion, and hand velocities and on time to ballcontact of high school baseball players. J Strength Cond Res 20: 231240, 2006.

12. Szymanski, DJ, Szymanski, JM, Bradford, TJ, Schade, RL, andPascoe, DD. Effect of twelve weeks of medicine ball training on highschool baseball players. J Strength Cond Res 21: 894901, 2007.

13. Szymanski, DJ, Szymanski, JM, Molloy, JM, and Pascoe, DD. Effectof 12 weeks of wrist and forearm training on high school baseballplayers. J Strength Cond Res 18: 432440, 2004.

14. Treiber, FA, Lott, J, Duncan, J, Slavens, G, and Davis, H. Effects of Theraband and lightweight dumbbell training on shoulder rotationtorque and serve performance in college tennis players. Am J Sports Med 26: 510515, 1998.

15. Wooden, MJ, Greeneld, B, Johanson, M,Litzelman, L, Mundrane, M,and Donatelli, RA. Effects of strength training on throwing velocityand shoulder muscle performance in teenagebaseball players. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 15: 223228, 1992.



Documents

Effects of a 4-Week Youth Baseball Conditioning Program on Throwing Velocity