Pitch velocity (PV) is important for pitching success, and the pelvis and trunk likely influence pitch performance. The purposes of this study were to examine the differences in pelvis and trunk kinetics and kinematics in professional baseball pitchers who throw at lower versus higher velocities (HVPs) and to examine the relationships among pelvis and trunk kinetics and kinematics and PV during each phase of the pitch delivery. The pitch velocity, pelvis and trunk peak angular velocities, kinetic energies and torques, and elbow and shoulder loads were compared among HVPs (n = 71; PV ≥ 40.2 m/s) and lower velocities pitchers (n = 78; PV < 39.8 m/s), as were trunk and pelvis rotation, flexion, and obliquity among 7 phases of the pitching delivery. Relationships among the kinetic and kinematic variables and PVs were examined. Higher velocity pitchers achieved greater upper trunk rotation at hand separation (+7.2°, P < .001) and elbow extension (+5.81°, P = .002) and were able to generate greater upper trunk angular velocities (+36.6 m/s, P = .01) compared with lower velocity pitcher. Trunk angular velocity (r = .29) and upper trunk rotation at hand separation (r = .18) and foot contact (r = .17) were weakly related to PV. Therefore, HVPs rotate their upper trunk to a greater degree during the early phases of the pitching motion and subsequently generate greater trunk angular velocities and PV.

Background:Elbow injury rates among baseball pitchers are rapidly rising. However, this increase has been most dramatic among high school (HS) pitchers.Purpose:To examine pitch velocity and the kinetic and kinematic characteristics of HS versus professional (PRO) pitchers to identify potential differences that may play a role in the increased risk of ulnar collateral ligament injury in youth pitchers.Study Design:Controlled laboratory study.Methods:A total of 37 HS (mean ± SD: age, 16 ± 1 years) and 40 PRO (age, 21 ± 2 years) baseball pitchers completed maximal-effort baseball pitches during a single testing session, from which pitch velocity (PV), absolute and normalized elbow varus torque (EVTA and EVTN, respectively) during arm cocking and at maximum shoulder external rotation (MER), and 8 other elbow and shoulder torques or forces and rotational kinematics of the pelvis and trunk were analyzed, recorded, and compared.Results:PV was greater in PRO than HS athletes; EVTA was greater in PRO than HS athletes during arm cocking and at MER; but EVTN was similar during arm cocking and greater in HS than PRO athletes at MER. In PRO athletes, PV was not related to EVTA during arm cocking or MER (r = 0.01-0.05). Furthermore, in PRO athletes, EVTA during arm cocking and at MER were inversely related to upper trunk rotation at hand separation and foot contact and to pelvis rotation at elbow extension (r = –0.30 to –0.33). In contrast, in HS athletes, PV was strongly related to EVTA during arm cocking and MER (r = 0.76-0.77). Furthermore, in HS athletes, PV and EVTA during arm cocking and at MER were moderately or strongly related to the other elbow and shoulder torques and forces (r = 0.424-0.991), and EVTA was not related to upper trunk rotation or pelvis rotation throughout the throwing motion (r = –0.16 to 0.15).Conclusion:The kinetic and rotational kinematic differences observed between PRO and HS pitchers in this study may help explain the greater performance of PRO pitchers while allowing them to minimize EVT during pitching. HS pitchers, however, do not appear to be as capable of utilizing the forces generated by rotation of their trunk and pelvis to aid in pitching, and those who throw the hardest generate the greatest forces at the shoulder and elbow. As a result, they experience higher EVTs relative to their body size, which may place them at an increased risk of injury.Clinical Relevance:HS pitchers throw harder primarily by generating larger forces in the arm and shoulder. Thus, owing to the relative physical immaturity of HS versus PRO pitchers, these factors may place them at an increased risk of injury. Coaches may first wish to focus on improving the rotational kinematics of HS pitchers rather than first focusing on achieving greater pitch velocities.

Beyer, KS, Stout, JR, Fukuda, DH, Jajtner, AR, Townsend, JR, Church, DD, Wang, R, Riffe, JJ, Muddle, TWD, Herrlinger, KA, and Hoffman, JR. Impact of polyphenol supplementation on acute and chronic response to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 31(11): 2945–2954, 2017—This study investigated the effect of a proprietary polyphenol blend (PPB) on acute and chronic adaptations to resistance exercise. Forty untrained men were assigned to control, PPB, or placebo. Participants in PPB or placebo groups completed a 4-week supplementation period (phase I), an acute high-volume exercise bout (phase II), and a 6-week resistance training program (phase III); whereas control completed only testing during phase II. Blood draws were completed during phases I and II. Maximal strength in squat, leg press, and leg extension were assessed before and after phase III. The exercise protocol during phase II consisted of squat, leg press, and leg extension exercises using 70% of the participant's strength. The resistance training program consisted of full-body exercises performed 3 d·wk−1. After phase I, PPB (1.56 ± 0.48 mM) had greater total antioxidant capacity than placebo (1.00 ± 0.90 mM). Changes in strength from phase III were similar between PPB and placebo. Polyphenol blend supplementation may be an effective strategy to increase antioxidant capacity without limiting strength gains from training.

Recent evidence suggests that resistance training with light or heavy loads to failure results in similar adaptations. Herein, we compared how both training modalities affect the molecular, neuromuscular, and recovery responses following exercise. Resistance‐trained males (mean ± SE: 22 ± 2 years, 84.8 ± 9.0 kg, 1.79 ± 0.06 m; n = 15) performed a crossover design of four sets of leg extensor exercise at 30% (light RE) or 80% (heavy RE) one repetition maximum (1RM) to repetition failure, and heavy RE or light RE 1 week later. Surface electromyography (EMG) was monitored during exercise, and vastus lateralis muscle biopsies were collected at baseline (PRE), 15 min (15mPOST), and 90 min following RE (90mPOST) for examination of molecular targets and fiber typing. Isokinetic dynamometry was also performed before (PRE), immediately after (POST), and 48 h after (48hPOST) exercise. Dependent variables were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVAs and significance was set at P ≤ 0.05. Repetitions completed were greater during light RE (P < 0.01), while EMG amplitude was greater during heavy RE (P ≤ 0.01). POST isokinetic torque was reduced following light versus heavy RE (P < 0.05). Postexercise expression of mRNAs and phosphoproteins associated with muscle hypertrophy were similar between load conditions. Additionally, p70s6k (Thr389) phosphorylation and fast‐twitch fiber proportion exhibited a strong relationship after both light and heavy RE (r > 0.5). While similar mRNA and phosphoprotein responses to both modalities occurred, we posit that heavy RE is a more time‐efficient training method given the differences in total repetitions completed, lower EMG amplitude during light RE, and impaired recovery response after light RE.

Introduction: The purpose of this investigation was to: (1) to determine the reliability of rectus femoris muscle cross-sectional area and echo intensity obtained using panoramic ultrasound imaging during seated and supine lying positions before and after a 5-minute rest period and (2) to determine the influence of body position and rest period on the magnitude of rectus femoris muscle cross-sectional area and echo intensity measurements. Methods: A total of 23 males and females (age ¼ 21.5 AE 1.9 years) visited the laboratory on two separate occasions. During each visit, panoramic ultrasound images of the rectus femoris were obtained in both a seated and a supine position before (T1) and after a 5-minute (T2) rest period to quantify any potential changes in either muscle cross-sectional area and/or echo intensity. Results: None of the muscle cross-sectional area or echo intensity measurements exhibited systematic variability, and the ICCs were 0.98-0.99 and 0.88-0.91, and the coefficients of variation were 3.9% and 8.2% for muscle cross-sectional area and echo intensity, respectively. Our results indicated that muscle cross-sectional area was greater in the seated than supine position, whereas echo intensity was greater in the supine position. Further, echo intensity increased in the seated position from T1 to T2. Conclusion: Both rectus femoris muscle cross-sectional area and echo intensity may be reliably measured in either a seated or supine lying position before or after a 5-minute rest period. Aside from echo intensity in the seated position, rest period had no influence on the magnitude of muscle cross-sectional area or echo intensity. Comparison of muscle cross-sectional area values that are obtained in different body positions is ill-advised.