Interval Sport Programs: Guidelines for Baseball, Tennis, and Golf

Reinold, Michael M.; Wilk, Kevin E.; Reed, Jamie L.; Crenshaw, Ken; Andrews, James R.

doi:10.2519/jospt.2002.32.6.293

Cited by 138 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…28,29 The interval throwing program starts skeletally mature players at a throwing distance of 45 ft (14 m) and progressively increases it to 180 ft (55 m). 3,22 For all flat-ground throws, the player is verbally instructed to use "crow-hop" footwork, to throw "on a line" (a hard throw with a low trajectory), and to use proper mechanics. 3,22,28,29 The use of proper mechanics-the mechanics used by healthy players-is a critical aspect of the interval throwing program.…”

Section: Biomechanical Comparison Of Baseballmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3,22 For all flat-ground throws, the player is verbally instructed to use "crow-hop" footwork, to throw "on a line" (a hard throw with a low trajectory), and to use proper mechanics. 3,22,28,29 The use of proper mechanics-the mechanics used by healthy players-is a critical aspect of the interval throwing program. It has been suggested that pitching coaches and sports biomechanists provide a valuable service on a rehabilitation team to ensure proper mechanics.…”

Section: Biomechanical Comparison Of Baseballmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biomechanical Comparison of Baseball Pitching and Long-Toss: Implications for Training and Rehabilitation

Fleisig¹,

Bolt²,

Fortenbaugh³

et al. 2011

Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

Self Cite

119

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design Controlled laboratory study. Objectives To test for kinematic and kinetic differences between baseball pitching from a mound and long-toss on flat ground. Background Long-toss throws from flat ground are commonly used by baseball pitchers for rehabilitation, conditioning, and training. However, there is controversy over the biomechanics and functionality of such throws. Methods Seventeen healthy, college baseball pitchers pitched fastballs 18.4 m from a mound to a strike zone, and threw 37 m, 55 m, and maximum distance from flat ground. For the 37-m and 55-m throws, participants were instructed to throw “hard, on a horizontal line.” For the maximum-distance throw, no constraint on trajectory was given. Kinematics and kinetics were measured with a 3-dimensional, automated motion analysis system. Repeated-measures analyses of variance, with post hoc paired t tests, were used to compare the 4 throw types within pitchers. Results At foot contact, the participant's shoulder line was nearly horizontal when pitching from a mound and became progressively more inclined as throwing distance increased. At arm cocking, the greatest amount of shoulder external rotation (mean ± SD, 180° ± 11°), elbow flexion (109° ± 10°), shoulder internal rotation torque (101 ± 17 Nm), and elbow varus torque (100 ± 18 Nm) were measured during the maximum-distance throws. Elbow extension velocity was also greatest for the maximum-distance throws (2573°/s ± 203°/s). Forward trunk tilt at the instant of ball release decreased as throwing distance increased. Conclusion Hard, horizontal, flat-ground throws have biomechanical patterns similar to those of pitching and are, therefore, reasonable exercises for pitchers. However, maximum-distance throws produce increased torques and changes in kinematics. Caution is, therefore, advised in the use of these throws for rehabilitation and training. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011;41(5):296–303, Epub 5 January 2011. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.3568

show abstract

Section: Biomechanical Comparison Of Baseballmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Biomechanical Comparison Of Baseballmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical Comparison of Baseball Pitching and Long-Toss: Implications for Training and Rehabilitation

Fleisig¹,

Bolt²,

Fortenbaugh³

et al. 2011

Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

Self Cite

119

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A gradual return to overhead sports through an interval sport program was allowed beginning week 16, as described by Reinold et al 21 Criteria to begin an interval sport program consisted of no pain or tenderness, full range of motion and flexibility, satisfactory clinical examination including stability testing, and sufficient strength based on isokinetic testing. 21,33,34 Isokinetic strength values at 180°/s should include a ratio of external rotation peak torque to body weight from 18% to 23%, a ratio of external rotation to internal rotation from 66% to 76%, and a ratio of external rotation to abduction from 67% to 75%.…”

Section: Postoperative Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…21,33,34 Isokinetic strength values at 180°/s should include a ratio of external rotation peak torque to body weight from 18% to 23%, a ratio of external rotation to internal rotation from 66% to 76%, and a ratio of external rotation to abduction from 67% to 75%. 21,33,34 Modifications to the rehabilitation program were made based on concomitant procedures performed at the time of thermal application. Rehabilitation of the patient with a SLAP repair incorporates an initial slower rate of progression to allow the healing of the repaired tissues.…”

Section: Postoperative Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thermal-Assisted Capsular Shrinkage of the Glenohumeral Joint in Overhead Athletes: A 15- to 47-Month Follow-up

Reinold

Wilk²,

Hooks³

et al. 2003

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design: Descriptive postoperative follow-up research. Objectives: The purpose of this investigation was to describe the return-to-competition rate and functional outcome of overhead athletes following arthroscopic thermal-assisted capsular shrinkage (TACS).Background: Traditional open procedures to correct instability in overhead athletes, such as capsulolabral repairs and capsular shifts, have produced less-than-favorable results, which have led to the development of TACS. Currently there are no long-term follow-up studies documenting the efficacy of this procedure in groups greater than 31 subjects or for a time period greater than 27 months. Methods and Measures: Two hundred thirty-one consecutive overhead athletes who due to symptoms of hyperlaxity had previously undergone a TACS procedure from 1997 to 1999 were selected for inclusion in the study. During a 1-month period, 130 of these athletes (mean age ± SD, 24 ± 6 years; 113 male, 17 female) were contacted by phone for follow-up at a mean of 29.3 months postoperatively (range, 15.4-46.6 months). Of the 130, 105 participated in baseball (80 pitchers), 14 in softball, 4 in football (quarterbacks), 4 in tennis, and 3 in swimming. Fifty-four (42%) subjects were professional, 49 (38%) collegiate, 16 (12%) high school, and 11 (8%) recreational athletes. One hundred twenty-three of the 130 (95%) underwent 1 or more concomitant procedure(s) at the time of TACS. Most commonly performed were labral debridements (69%), rotator cuff debridements (65%), and superior labral repairs (35%). Subjects who returned to competition were retrospectively evaluated using a modified Athletic Shoulder Outcome Rating Scale to subjectively assess pain, strength and endurance, stability, intensity, and performance. Overall results were based on a 90-point scale with scores of 80 to 90 representing excellent, 60 to 79 good, 40 to 59 fair, and less than 40 poor results. Results: One hundred thirteen out of 130 subjects (87%) returned to competition. Mean (±SD) time from surgery to return to competition was 8.4 ± 4.6 months. Mean outcome score for all subjects was 79/90; 75 (66%) subjects had excellent, 24 (21%) good, 11 (10%) fair, and 3 (3%) poor result. The mean outcome score for males was 80/90 and for females was 70/90.

show abstract

“…These activities are designed to gradually return motion, function, and confidence in the upper extremity by progressing through graduated sport-specific activities. [51][52][53] These interval sport programs are set up to minimize the chance of re-injury while training the patient for the demands of each individual sport. Each program should be individualized based on the patient's injury, skill level, and goals.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Nonoperative rehabilitation for traumatic and atraumatic glenohumeral instability

Wilk

Macrina²,

Reinold³

2012

Shoulder Instability: A Comprehensive Approach

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interval Sport Programs: Guidelines for Baseball, Tennis, and Golf

Cited by 138 publications

References 7 publications

Biomechanical Comparison of Baseball Pitching and Long-Toss: Implications for Training and Rehabilitation

Biomechanical Comparison of Baseball Pitching and Long-Toss: Implications for Training and Rehabilitation

Thermal-Assisted Capsular Shrinkage of the Glenohumeral Joint in Overhead Athletes: A 15- to 47-Month Follow-up

Nonoperative rehabilitation for traumatic and atraumatic glenohumeral instability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About