More information from the internet

This is intended as a sort of extension to Jimster’s earlier thread, concerning good/bad information on the internet.

PubMed is a place on the internet where a great deal of free information relevant to the throwing athlete can be found; however, it is not necessarily a source for easy, “pre-digested” information.

Still, one can find well-controlled studies that are of real interest, such as this one:

J Strength Cond Res. 2012 May 3.


Escamilla RF, Ionno M, Demahy S, Fleisig GS, Wilk KE, Yamashiro K, Mikla T, Paulos L, Andrews JR.

California State University,Sacramento, Department of Physical Therapy, Sacramento, CA, USA 2Texas Tech University, Health, Exercise & Sports Sciences Department, Lubbock, TX, USA 3Andrews-Paulos Research and Education Institute, Gulf Breeze, FL, USA 4American Sports Medicine Institute, Birmingham, AL, USA 5Champion Sports Medicine, Birmingham, AL, USA 6Results Physical Therapy and Training Center, Sacramento, CA, USA.

ABSTRACT: Throwing velocity is an important baseball performance variable for baseball pitchers, because greater throwing velocity results in less time for hitters to make a decision to swing. Throwing velocity is also an important baseball performance variable for position players, because greater throwing velocity results in decreased time for a runner to advance to the next base. This study compared the effects of 3 baseball-specific 6-week training programs on maximum throwing velocity. Sixty-eight high school baseball players 14-17 years of age were randomly and equally divided into three training groups and a non-training control group. The 3 training groups were the Throwers Ten (TT), Keiser Pneumatic (KP), and Plyometric (PLY). Each training group trained 3 days per week for 6 weeks, comprised of approximately 5-10 min for warm-up, 45 min of resistance training, and 5-10 for cool down. Throwing velocity was assessed prior to (pre-test) and just after (post-test) the 6-week training program for all subjects. A two-factor repeated measures analysis of variance with post-hoc paired t-tests was used to assess throwing velocity differences (p < 0.05). Compared to pre-test throwing velocity values, post-test throwing velocity values were significantly greater in the TT group (1.7% increase), the KP group (1.2% increase), and the PLY group (2.0% increase), but not significantly different in the control group. These results demonstrate that all 3 training programs were effective in increasing throwing velocity in high school baseball players, but the results of this study did not demonstrate that one resistance training program was more effective than another resistance training program in increasing throwing velocity.


Eric Cressey has other possibly interesting information on this subject that cites this study:

Here is another example of a research article that may be of some interest to pitchers, also found on PubMed:

J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Nov;25(11):2985-90.

Effects of dynamic warm-up on lower body explosiveness among collegiate baseball players.

Frantz TL, Ruiz MD.

Department of Kinesiology and Recreation Management, Huntington University, Huntington, Indiana, USA.

Debate exists between the benefits and effectiveness of a dynamic warm-up vs. a static warm-up. This study was conducted to compare dynamic and static warm-ups on lower body explosiveness as measured by stationary vertical jump (VJ) and standing long jump (LJ) among collegiate baseball players. Participants (n = 17; age = 19.59 ± 1.37 years) progressed through 3 different warm-ups on weekly testing dates over a 7-week period. After the warm-up routines, participants were measured for VJ height and LJ distance in centimeters. The mean jump heights for VJ were 66.49 ± 8.28 cm for dynamic, 61.42 ± 7.51 cm for static, and 62.72 ± 7.84 cm for the control condition. The mean jump distances for LJ were 231.99 ± 20.69 cm for dynamic, 219.69 ± 20.96 cm for static, and 226.46 ± 20.60 cm for the control. Results indicated that the participants jumped significantly higher in both experimental conditions while under the influence of the dynamic warm-up (VJ-F = 22.08; df = 1.33, 21.345; p < 0.00 and LJ-F = 32.20; df = 2, 32; p < 0.01). Additional LJ analysis determined that individuals jumped significantly further after no warm-up compared to after a static warm-up (-6.78, p < 0.05). Lower body explosiveness is critical in baseball and many other sports as well. The results show that dynamic warm-up increases both VJ height and LJ distance. Specifically, these findings indicate that athletes could gain nearly 2 in. on his or her vertical jump by simply switching from a static warm-up routine to a dynamic routine.


Interesting information!

Very cool stuff. I love information like this. I’ve had to read lots of primary literature this past year (mostly on topics I had very little knowledge of), it’s refreshing to finally read about things I actually know about/am interested in. If you find anymore please post them!

I agree 100%

Of possible general interest to athletes:

J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2012 Apr;34(2):159-83.

Perfectionistic profiles among elite athletes and differences in their motivational orientations.

Gucciardi DF, Mahoney J, Jalleh G, Donovan RJ, Parkes J.

School of Human Movement Studies, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Although there is an emerging body of research that has examined perfectionistic clusters in the general population, few studies have explored such profiles in athlete samples. The purposes of this research were to explore perfectionistic profiles within a sample of elite athletes and the differences between them on key motivational variables. A sample of 423 elite athletes (179 males, 244 females) aged between 14 and 66 years (M = 25.64; SD = 8.57) from a variety of team (e.g., rowing, hockey, baseball, rugby) and individual sports (e.g., cycling, athletics, triathlon, gymnastics) completed a multisection questionnaire including measures of sport perfectionism, motivation regulation, achievement goals, and fear of failure. Cluster analyses revealed the existence of three perfectionism profiles, namely, nonperfectionists, maladaptive perfectionists, and adaptive perfectionists. Subsequent analyses generally supported the robustness of these perfectionism profiles in terms of differential motivational orientations (achievement goals, fear of failure, and motivation regulation) in hypothesized directions. Overall, the differences in motivational orientations between the three clusters supported a categorical conceptualization of perfectionism.

PMID: 22605360

Thanks for sharing.