Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Andrews-Paulos Research and Education Institute, Gulf Breeze, Florida; 2American Sports Medicine Institute, Birmingham,
Alabama; and 3Results Physical Therapy and Training Center, Sacramento, California
ABSTRACT
Escamilla, RF, Fleisig, GS, Yamashiro, K, Mikla, T, Dunning, R,
Paulos, L, and Andrews, JR. Effects of a 4-week youth baseball
conditioning 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 examined
the effects of a 4-week youth baseball conditioning program on
maximum throwing velocity. Thirty-four youth baseball players
(1115 years of age) were randomly and equally divided into
control and training groups. The training group performed
3 sessions (each 75 minutes) weekly for 4 weeks, which
comprised a sport specific warm-up, resistance training with
elastic tubing, a throwing program, and stretching. Throwing
velocity was assessed initially and at the end of the 4-week
conditioning program for both control and training groups. The
level of significance used was p , 0.05. After the 4-week
conditioning program, throwing velocity increased significantly
(from 25.1 6 2.8 to 26.1 6 2.8 ms21) in the training group but
did not significantly increase in the control group (from 24.2 6
3.6 to 24.0 6 3.9 ms21). These results demonstrate that the
short-term 4-week baseball conditioning program was effective
in increasing throwing velocity in youth baseball players.
Increased throwing velocity may be helpful for pitchers (less
time for hitters to swing) and position players (decreased time
for a runner to advance to the next base).
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
the
TM
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the
TM
Figure 4. A, B) Rowing.
| www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the
TM
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the
TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the
RESULTS
There were no significant differences in age, mass, and height
comparisons between control and training groups. Mean
(6SD) throwing velocity comparisons between pretest and
posttest measurements for the control and training groups are
shown in Table 1. In the training group, throwing velocity was
significantly greater after the conditioning program (posttest
measurements) compared to before the conditioning program
(pretest measurements), whereas in the control group, there
TM
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the
TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
TABLE 1. Mean 6 SD data are shown between pretest and posttest throwing velocity for the training (n = 17) and control
(n = 17) groups.
Throwing velocity
Group
Pretest (ms21)
Posttest (ms21)
p-Value
Training*
Control
25.1 6 2.8
24.2 6 3.6
26.1 6 2.8
24.0 6 3.9
0.004
0.209
DISCUSSION
As hypothesized, throwing velocity increased in the training
group after the 4-week baseball conditioning program. These
results demonstrate that even a short-term conditioning
program can result in increased throwing velocity in youth
baseball players. Because youth are often involved in multiple
sports 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 longer
duration program (e.g., 1012 weeks), especially because the
results of this study demonstrate that baseball performance
variables can be enhanced in a short-term program.
The improvement in ball velocity may have been affected by
both the training intensity and training volume, and more
research is needed in this area. The resistance training program
in this study involved employing moderate intensity rather
than high intensity, the latter being more conducive in
maximizing strength gain (9). However, it was important that
the young subjects in this study be able to perform each
resistance exercise with proper form and technique, and in
a controlled manner, and higher intensity training may
compromise proper form and technique in youth (4).
Moreover, it is common when using elastic tubing for
resistance training to use lower to moderate intensities with
higher number of repetitions, typically between 10 and 25
repetitions (14), and high resistance training with lower
repetitions is typically reserved for free weight or machine
resistance training (9). Although the 1 set of 2025 repetitions
in this study was more conducive for maximizing muscular
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
REFERENCES
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
10. Szymanski, DJ, McIntyre, JS, Szymanski, JM, Bradford, TJ, Schade, RL,
Madsen, NH, and Pascoe, DD. Effect of torso rotational strength on
angular hip, angular shoulder, and linear bat velocities of high school
baseball players. J Strength Cond Res 21: 11171125, 2007.
1. Axe, MJ, Snyder-Mackler, L, Konin, JG, and Strube, MJ. Development of a distance-based interval throwing program for Little
League-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 on
throwing velocity and functional strength ratios of the shoulder
rotators in collegiate baseball players. J Strength Cond Res 21: 208
215, 2007.
3. Conte, S, Requa, RK, and Garrick, JG. Disability days in major league
baseball. 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: updated
position statement paper from the national strength and conditioning 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, and
Souglis, 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: A
detailed 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: implications for the development of proximal humeral epiphysiolysis and
humeral 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.
11. Szymanski, DJ, McIntyre, JS, Szymanski, JM, Molloy, JM, Madsen, NH,
and Pascoe, DD. Effect of wrist and forearm training on linear batend, center of percussion, and hand velocities and on time to ball
contact of high school baseball players. J Strength Cond Res 20: 231
240, 2006.
12. Szymanski, DJ, Szymanski, JM, Bradford, TJ, Schade, RL, and
Pascoe, DD. Effect of twelve weeks of medicine ball training on high
school baseball players. J Strength Cond Res 21: 894901, 2007.
13. Szymanski, DJ, Szymanski, JM, Molloy, JM, and Pascoe, DD. Effect
of 12 weeks of wrist and forearm training on high school baseball
players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 432440, 2004.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
the
TM
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.