Effects of General, Special, and Specific Resistance

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2001, 15(1), 148–156 ᭧ 2001 National Strength & Conditioning Association Brief Review

Effects of General, Special, and Speciﬁc Resistance Training on Throwing Velocity in Baseball: A Brief Review

COOP DERENNE,1 KWOK W. HO,1 AND JAMES C. MURPHY2

1Department of Kinesiology and Leisure Science, College of Education, University of Hawaii-Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822; 2University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6K2B2.

ABSTRACT mary analytical attention, the trunk and lower extrem- Throwing velocity is a necessary requirement for success in ities play a vital role in throwing mechanics. Toyosh- baseball. All position players, including pitchers, may in- ima et al. (65) conducted a biomechanical study on the crease their defensive performance if their throwing velocity overhand throw. The results indicated that 46.9% of is improved. A review of the literature suggests that throw- the velocity of the overhand throw could be attributed ing velocity can be increased by resistance training and/or to the stride and body rotation, whereas 53.1% of the biomechanical improvement of the throwing motion. This velocity was due to action of the arm. Therefore, resis- paper reviews the 3 broad categories of resistance-training tance-training programs for baseball players to im- methods by which throwing velocity is increased. The results prove throwing velocity, particularly for pitchers, of research using general, special, and specific throwing re- should be designed to include arm, trunk, and lower- sistance-training exercises are presented. The role and ap- body exercises. plications of these different exercises for baseball players of different ages are discussed. According to Baker (2), resistance-training exercises are classified as general, special, or specific depend- ing on their biomechanical characteristics and effects Key Words: ballistic training, isotonic, specificity on the neuromuscular system. General resistance- training exercises increase the overall maximal Reference Data: DeRenne, C., K.W. Ho, and J.C. Mur- phy. Effects of general, special, and specific resistance strength of the muscles. In throwing, examples of training on throwing velocity in baseball: A brief re- these exercises are the supine bench press, latissimus view. J. Strength Cond. Res. 15(1):148–156. 2001. dorsi pull-downs, shoulder press, straight- or bent- arm pullover, biceps curls, triceps extensions, shoulder dumbbell exercises (lateral raise, supraspinatus raise, internal rotation, external rotation, flexion, and abduc- Introduction tion), ulnar and radial deviations, wrist rolls, squats, hrowing velocity is an important performance var- leg curls, and leg extensions (1, 6, 18, 21, 26, 30, 42, Tiable in baseball. The ability of throwing the ball 50, 56, 63, 64). faster is not only important for baseball pitchers, but Once the player’s strength levels have been in- is also important for position players to execute suc- creased, special resistance exercises can be used to cessful defense. In pitching in particular, the ball is train the athlete for muscular power development. Ex- delivered at extremely fast speeds. It is not uncommon amples of traditional upper-body power exercises are for a pitcher to deliver a 90–100 miles per hour (mph) explosive isotonic exercises (e.g., power cleans, snatch- fastball today. es, pulls and push presses); ballistic resistance train- A review of literature indicated that throwing ve- ing; plyometric training (e.g., medicine ball); and iso- locity can be increased with an improvement of throw- kinetics (24, 30, 33, 45, 70). The training effect of these ing biomechanics (47, 65) and/or by resistance train- special resistance exercises is to convert general mus- ing (1, 7, 26, 30, 32, 45, 50, 58, 62–64, 69). This portion cular strength to the special quality of power that is of the review will only focus on the affects of resis- relevant to throwing (2). These power exercises are tance training on throwing velocity. characterized by a more rapid execution and a higher Biomechanically, the overhand throw is a complex muscular power output. motion involving the entire body in a coordinated Specific resistance exercises are designed to follow manner (65). Although the throwing arm receives pri- the concept of specificity by providing a training stim-

148 Resistance Training and Throwing Velocity 149

ulus that is very similar to actual motion in competi- ing weeks were divided into 6 3-week cycles. Inter- tion. Examples of these exercises for baseball-throwing estingly, the results of this study indicated that there motion are weighted baseballs, surgical tube exercises, were no significant increases in throwing velocity until and the Exer-genie cord (1, 7, 14, 15, 32, 52, 56, 62, 63, the sixth cycle (16th–18th week). 70). These exercises attempt to mimic the high-velocity Popescue (49) also reported an increase of throw- ballistic throwing motion. ing velocity (3.8 mph) using an isotonic-training pro- The purpose of this portion of the paper is to re- gram designed to strengthen the upper-body throw- view the relative effectiveness of general, special, and ing muscles in high school players. The studies of both specific training exercises on increased throwing ve- Bagonzi (1) and Popescue (49) were conducted in the locity. In addition, the role and application of these off-season. In contrast, Jackson (26) reported no sig- respective exercises for baseball players at different nificant increase in throwing velocity within the same ages and levels will be discussed. high school age group (15–19 years) during an 8-week in-season competitive period. In Jackson’ study (26), Effects of Resistance Training although strength and velocity gains were the intent, only 5 shoulder dumbbell exercises (supraspinatus The effects of resistance-training programs on throw- raise, internal rotation, external rotation, shoulder flex- ing velocity have been reported since the 1960s (7, 18, ion, and shoulder abduction) were used. It should be 32, 52, 63, 67). In general, these studies focused on noted that although the throwing velocity was not sig- identifying the type of resistance training that would nificantly increased in this study, the shoulder dumb- most effectively improve throwing velocity (1, 15, 16, bell exercise protocol did maintain the subjects’ throw- 18, 30, 42, 56). Recent research has also attempted to ing velocity and actually produced a slight increase of determine the possible mechanisms by which throw- 0.62 mph. Therefore, this exercise protocol could be ing velocity is increased and how the throwing veloc- used as part of an in-season maintenance resistance- ity is affected by various resistance-training methods. training program. General Resistance Training Similar to the above studies for high school base- In theory, general resistance training aims to improve ball players, general isotonic throwing velocity studies the contractile capabilities of the muscle. Before the using collegiate players also involved traditional up- 1980s, general resistance-training programs consisted per-body exercises. Swangard (63) found a significant of traditional isotonic exercises. These isotonic exercis- increase in throwing velocity after an 8-week upper- es heavily concentrated on the development of upper- body resistance exercise program with collegiate body strength (1, 49, 62–64). These upper-body exer- pitchers. The exercises included the arm pullover, cise protocols were popularly used because of the in- standing press, biceps curl, shoulder shrug, supine lat- fluence of the study of Toyoshima et al. (66). The re- eral raise, wrist curl and extension, ulnar and radial sults of this study suggested that certain upper-body deviations, and squats. In a related study, Potteiger et major muscles evoke strong trunk and shoulder rota- al. (50) found a significant increase in throwing veloc- tion, and thus enhance throwing velocity (66). The ity (2.3 mph) using a traditional upper- and lower- contribution to lower-body movement (the kinetic link body isotonic exercise protocol with collegiate position biomechanical principle) in the throwing motion was players. These investigators used a progressive resis- not studied in these early studies. Nonetheless, high tance-training protocol with the following exercises: school and collegiate baseball position players and the bench press, military press, latissimus pull-down, pitchers improved their throwing velocity by using biceps curl, triceps extension, squat, leg curl, and leg these traditional upper-body isotonic exercises. extension. Sullivan (62) used progressive and nonpro- It should be pointed out that some of the important gressive isotonic upper-body resistance-training pro- studies in throwing velocity using isotonic resistance tocols to determine the effects of resistance training on training were published in the form of master or doc- throwing velocity among college men (non–baseball toral degree theses (1, 18, 26, 53, 56, 62). The fact that players). The isotonic exercises used were wrist curls, these studies were not published in refereed journals supine lateral raises, and bent-arm pullovers. Al- should not be used to discredit their value since many though the investigator found a significant increase in findings of these graduate theses have been verified by throwing velocity with the isotonic upper-body exer- other investigators (45, 49, 50, 64). cise protocol, the results of the study also revealed that Traditionally, isotonic resistance training used in (a) free-weight exercise was more effective than wall throwing velocity studies among high school baseball pulley exercise (which simulated throwing motion), players involved upper-body free-weight exercises and and (b) progression or nonprogression resistance-ex- shoulder dumbbell exercises. Bagonzi (1) reported that ercise protocols had no significant differential effects upper-body training exercises significantly increased on throwing velocity. throwing velocities. The training protocol consisted of Newton and McEvoy (45) recently reported a sig- 2 exercise sessions per week for 18 weeks. The 18 train- nificant increase in throwing velocity that resulted 150 DeRenne, Ho, and Murphy from upper-body isotonic resistance training. Twenty- of power training using explosive isotonic resistance four elite collegiate baseball players (age 18.6 Ϯ 1.9 exercises on throwing velocity. Lachowetz et al. (30) years) trained twice per week for 8 weeks. The isotonic has conducted the only upper-body throwing-power resistance-training protocol consisted of 3 sets of 8 to research study using conventional isotonic free 10 repetitions maximum (RM) for the first 4 weeks. weights and machines. In this study (30), the resis- Thereafter, they performed 3 sets of 6RM to 8RM for tance-training exercises were performed in an explo- the last 4 weeks. The isotonic exercises included the sive manner. The investigators (30) reported a signifi- conventional bench press and barbell pullover exercis- cant increase in throwing velocity in collegiate pitch- es that are commonly used by baseball players to train ers. During the 8-week training period, the exercise upper-body muscles in throwing. The results of this regimen combined a throwing program with tradi- study showed a 4.1 and 22.8% increase in throwing tional free weights, Cybex, Nautilus, and Cybex cable velocity and upper-body muscular strength, respec- pulley exercises. In addition, a concentric/eccentric ex- tively. The increased upper-body muscular strength ercise phase was also added. The training protocol may have contributed to the significant increase of consisted of a throwing program for 3 days per week, throwing velocity in the resistance-training group. which was combined with 4 resistance-training ses- However, it also has been shown that the correlation sions per week at 3 sets of 10RM followed immediately between muscular strength and throwing velocities by 5 additional concentric (assisted) and eccentric (un- was not very high. Therefore, it was suggested that assisted) repetitions for each exercise. The subjects there were other factors also involved in determining were instructed to perform each muscular contraction throwing velocity. explosively. The intent of this concentric/eccentric ex- In contrast, Shenk (56) reported no significant in- ercise was to specifically target the muscles for both crease in throwing velocity with a progressive isotonic acceleration and deceleration of the throwing arm. In- resistance-training program for the upper body in col- terestingly, of the 11 upper-body exercises used in this lege men (non–baseball players). The isotonic resis- study, 5 were shoulder cable pulley exercises that were tance-training group’s exercise protocol consisted of 21 performed in a way similar to the throwing motion. exercises performed 3 days per week for an 8-week Therefore, it is unclear that the significantly increased period. Of the 21 exercises, 17 were upper-body exer- throwing velocity in this study was the result of ex- cises and only 4 were lower-body exercises. In a relat- plosive power training, a movement-specific effect ed study, Edwards (16) also found no significant in- produced by the 5 shoulder cable pulley exercises, or crease in throwing velocity among collegiate baseball the combination of both factors. pitchers trained with upper-body exercises. The exer- Ballistic resistance training is another example of cises consisted of 7 shoulder dumbbell exercises. The power training that combines elements of plyometric training protocol consisted of 3 sessions a week for 6 training and weight resistance training (36). The ex- weeks. Each of 7 dumbbell exercises were performed ercise protocol involves the lifting of relatively light with 3 sets of 10 repetitions. In the same study, how- loads at high speeds. It should be noted that there are ever, a significant increase in throwing velocity was mixed opinions in the exercise community as to the found in the other experimental group that used pro- use of light vs. heavy loads during explosive resistance prioceptive neuromuscular facilitation upper-body training for the improvement of dynamic performanc- and arm/shoulder range of motion (ROM) exercises. es such as jumping, running, and throwing (4). In summary, the majority of studies demonstrated In a recent ballistic study using light loads (45% of that a significant increase in throwing velocity in high 1 repetition maximum [1RM]), Newton et al. (44) in- school and collegiate men can result from upper-body vestigated the kinematics, kinetics, and neural activa- isotonic resistance training. See Table 1 for the sum- tion during explosive upper-body movements. New- mary of the general resistance-training throwing stud- ton et al. (44) disclosed that the ballistic bench press ies. throwing motion produced a significantly higher average velocity, peak velocity, average force, average Special Resistance Training power, and peak power than the traditional bench As the baseball player’s muscular strength adequately press. Additionally, the average muscle activity (elec- increases during the off-season, he or she should pro- tromyogram [EMG]) during the concentric phase was ceed into a preseason power-training program (54, 60, also higher for the ballistic bench press throw. Fur- 61, 69). Special resistance exercises produce the explo- thermore, Newton et al. (44) also revealed that al- sive muscular power output needed for the ballistic though the ROM during the eccentric phases of the throwing motion. As previously mentioned, the pur- bench press and ballistic bench throw were similar, pose of this training is to convert general muscular muscle activation during the concentric phase of the strength to the special quality of power as relevant to ballistic bench press throw occurred over a shorter throwing (2). time period and resulted in significantly higher peak There is a paucity of research regarding the effects and average velocities (20). Likewise, compared with Resistance Training and Throwing Velocity 151

Table 1. Summary of throwing velocity resistance training studies.

Study Subjects Training method Strength change Velocity change

General* Bagonzi (1) High school Isotonic Increase Edwards (16) College Isotonic Decrease Jackson (26) High school Isotonic No change No change Newton and McEvoy (45) College Isotonic Increase Increase Potteiger (50) College Isotonic Increase Popescue (40) High school Isotonic Increase Shenk (56) College Isotonic No change No change Sullivan (62) College Isotonic Increase Swangard (63) College Isotonic Increase Thompson and Martin (64) College Isotonic Increase Special† Lachowetz et al. (30) College Isotonic Increase McEvoy and Newton (36) Professional Ballistic Increase Newton and McEvoy (45) College Medicine ball Increase No change Wooden et al. (71) High school Isokinetic Increase Speciﬁc‡ Bagonzi (1) High school Overload baseballs Increase Brose and Hanson (7) College Overload baseballs, Increase Wall pulley Increase DeRenne (13) High school Weighted baseballs Increase DeRenne (14) High school Weighted baseballs Increase DeRenne (15) High school, college Weighted baseballs Increase Egstrom et al. (17) College Weighted balls Increase Elias (18) College Overload baseballs Increase Logan et al. (32) College Exer-genie Increase Railey (52) College Wall pulley Increase Shenk (56) College Surgical tube No change Increase Sullivan (62) College Wall pulley Increase VanHuss et al. (67) College Overload baseballs Increase

* General: traditional isotonic resistance training exercises that increase overall maximum strength of the muscles. † Special: explosive resistance training exercises for muscular power development. ‡ Speciﬁc: resistance training exercises that attempt to minic the high-velocity ballistic throwing motion.

the bench press, the velocity and force curves for the ing velocity in the treatment group was possibly due ballistic bench press throw are more similar to those to (a) a training-induced, velocity-specific improve- curves recorded from typical explosive sport movement in strength, (b) an increase in rate of force de- ments such as throwing, jumping, and striking (29). velopment throughout the entire ROM, (c) an im- Moreover, several other studies (27, 33, 34, 39, 51, 70) proved stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) performance, also concurred that ballistic training with light loads and (d) an improved instantaneous feedback on train- (at 30–50% of 1RM) increase dynamic athletic perfor- ing performances. Ballistic training has been support- mances. ed by numerous strength coaches who believe that the Recently, McEvoy and Newton (36) reported a sig- closer the velocity and movement pattern of the train- nificant increase in throwing velocity (2.0%) using ing exercise is to the actual competitive sport skill, the light loads in training. Eighteen professional players greater the transfer of training gains to the athletic per- (age 24 Ϯ 4 years) trained during a 10-week preseason formance (40, 42). period in conjunction with their normal baseball train- Plyometric training is another example of special ing. The exercise protocol consisted of explosive bench resistance training used by many baseball players and press throws and squat jumps (‘‘advanced plyometric trainers (10, 37, 45, 51). Traditional plyometric training training’’) for 3 sessions every 2 weeks with a load of is seen by the baseball community as a possible link approximately 30–50% of 1RM using a plyometric between strength and speed of movement resulting in power system (43). The players performed with loads an increase of muscular power (10, 36). Baseball play- that could be progressively adjusted to an individual’s ers utilize this type of training in lower-body exercises maximized mechanical power output. The investiga- such as depth jumps and bounds and upper-body ex- tors concluded that the significant increase in throw- ercises in the form of medicine ball throws. Although 152 DeRenne, Ho, and Murphy plyometric training is popular among baseball players, and the IDVR group using the musculoskeletal evalu- very little research has been conducted as to the effects ation rehabilitation and conditioning (MERAC) dyna- of plyometric training on throwing or running speeds. mometer trained at 100% of the variable resistance Plyometric training research basically has been con- provided by the pretest results from the motor perfor- fined to the lower body such as vertical jumps (5, 55). mance curve. The MERAC provided the option of ac- Newton and McEvoy (45) conducted the only base- commodative isotonic resistance exercise in the IDVR ball throwing velocity study using upper-body ply- mode. Therefore, with no preset speed, the limb can ometric training. Subjects were collegiate (mean age of accelerate against the resistance to match the effort of 18.6 years) baseball players with no previous weight- the individual. These authors reported significant in- training experience and they were trained during the creases in throwing velocity and external rotator competitive season. The results of upper-body medi- torque in the IDVR group but not in the IKN group. cine ball exercises were compared with conventional In addition, there was a significant increase in external isotonic resistance exercises (bench press and barbell rotator power in both groups, but no significant im- pullover). The authors reported that both training provements in internal rotator torque and power for groups significantly increased their strength from either group. These findings were possibly due to (a) training: 22.8% for the conventional isotonic resis- an improvement in external rotator peak torque to tance-exercise group and 8.9% for the medicine ball body weight ratio; (b) an increase in external rotator exercise group, respectively. However, only the isoton- concentric torque output, which in turn improved ec- ic resistance-exercise group had a significant (4.1%) centric function; and (c) IDVR players’ ability to freely pre- to posttraining increase of throwing velocity. accelerate (possibly beyond the IKN’ 500Њ·sϪ1 limita- These findings suggested it may be necessary that tion) the arm, simulating the actual throwing motion. players with no previous weight-training experience It was suggested that IDVR resistance training may be first begin with an isotonic resistance-training pro- more effective than IKN training in improving throw- gram in order to increase throwing velocity. ing velocity and external rotator torque output. Isokinetic (IKN) training is a special resistance ex- In summary, it appears that special upper-body re- ercise that has a positive effect on throwing perfor- sistance training can significantly improve throwing mance (9, 11, 23, 25). Numerous studies have reported velocity in high school and collegiate players. A sum- the use of IKN to measure muscular strength (9, 20, mary of the 4 throwing velocity special resistance- 22) and torque output (19, 48, 59, 71). IKN exercise is training studies is presented in Table 1. thought to accommodate the exerciser because the resistance varies at each point in the ROM while the Specific Resistance Training speed of the movement can be prefixed as desired (12, Finally, numerous studies claimed that a significant in- 41). The advantage of this type of exercise is that max- crease in throwing velocity (1, 7, 14, 15, 17, 18, 56, 62) imum resistance can be applied throughout the full resulted from specific resistance training. The research ROM when the effort is maximum (12, 38). Past IKN question is, can specific resistance training principally studies have reported improvement of athletic perfor- recruit the high-threshold motor units by imitating the mances (19, 59). However, there is a possible disad- actual throwing motion and velocity? Examples of vantage when using IKN training to improve athletic specific resistance training are weighted implement performances, such as throwing, since most IKN ex- training, surgical tubing exercises, wall pulleys, and ercise devices allow only a maximum angular velocity the Exer-genie cord. of up to 500Њ·sϪ1. This angular velocity is far below the Weighted implement training involves exercising velocity of joint action in most throwing and striking with modified standard competitive implements (e.g., events (35). In the baseball throw, for example, internal baseballs) while duplicating the force-velocity output rotation of the shoulder joint accelerates to an angular and full ROM specific to the competitive movement velocity of 6,180Њ·sϪ1 (47). Therefore, IKN training de- pattern (14, 15). Previous throwing studies have indi- vices may inherently limit the required force produc- cated that the throwing velocity of a standard 5-oz tion and power output needed to accelerate the arm baseball can be increased significantly by overload fast enough to elicit a positive effect on throwing. training, or throwing a heavier baseball (7–15 oz; 1, 7, In a recent IKN study, Wooden et al. (71) deter- 17, 18, 31). In contrast, throwing velocity can also be mined if IKN training in throwing inhibits arm accel- increased using weighted implements that were slight- eration and torque production required for optimum ly lighter than the standard competitive weights (13, throwing velocities. The authors compared the effects 28, 66, 68). of IKN training and accommodative isotonic training DeRenne et al. (13–15) conducted 3 throwing and in the individualized, dynamic, variable resistance pitching velocity studies using under- and overweight- (IDVR) mode. During preseason, 27 high school (age ed baseballs. During the first throwing velocity pilot 15.5 Ϯ 0.97 years) baseball players trained 3 times per study in 1985, DeRenne (13) reported a significant week for 5 weeks. The IKN group exercised at 500Њ·sϪ1, gain in throwing velocity using either lighter or heavi- Resistance Training and Throwing Velocity 153

er baseballs. The underweighted baseball training greater exertion of muscle force at high speeds was group showed a significant increase in throwing ve- due to a modification of the recruitment pattern of mo- locity that was twice as great as the overweighted tor units in the central nervous system. Thus selective baseball group, 3 to 1.5 mph, respectively. The weight- activation of either of the fast or slow motor units in ed baseballs used in this study were either 20% below muscle could be specifically trained. or above the standard 5-oz weight. The training pro- Another specific resistance training mode that has tocol consisted of a controlled lesson plan composed been gaining popularity with baseball coaches, play- of pitch totals and a specific weighted baseballs throwers, and trainers is surgical tube exercises. However, ing sequence. there appears to be a paucity of research on the effects In 1990, DeRenne et al. (15) replicated the 1985 of surgical tube training on throwing performance. study using 30 high school varsity baseball pitchers Tubing exercises are used by position players and (ages 16–18). The results were similar to the 1985 pitchers to mimic the total competitive throwing DeRenne study (13). The underweighted group had a movement at or near game velocities and power out- significant increase of 4.72 mph in throwing velocity, puts (3). whereas the overweighted group also had a significant Recently, Shenk (56) examined the effects of a gen- improvement of 3.75 mph. The control group, on the eral isotonic strength-training program and a surgical other hand, had only improved 0.88 mph. tube exercise protocol on throwing velocity performed In 1994, DeRenne et al. (15) conducted the third by 34 college men with organized baseball or softball throwing velocity study using various combinations of experience. The tubing exercise protocol consisted of standard, light, and heavy baseballs with 45 high progressive resistance training by increasing the tub- school (age 16.6 Ϯ 0.57 years) and 180 college (age 19.6 ing tension when exercises were performed and in- Ϯ 0.46 years) pitchers. Each age group of pitchers were creasing the number of sets and repetitions of each randomly assigned into 2 experimental groups and 1 exercise for 3 training sessions per week over 8 weeks. control group. The training protocol consisted of the The findings in this study showed that the throwing following: (a) group 1 pitched with a weighted se- velocity of the surgical tube exercise group was sig- quence of a standard-heavy-light-standard baseball 3 nificantly increased (1.9 mph), whereas the isotonic days per week for 10 weeks; (b) group 2 pitched with weight-training group had no changes. Another inter- a ‘‘block’’ training of a weighted sequence of standard- esting finding of this study revealed that the signifi- heavy-standard for the first 5 weeks, then standard- cant increase in throwing velocity was made in the light-standard for the final 5 weeks; and (c) group 3 absence of any significant strength gains in both train- pitched only standard baseballs. The rationale for this ing groups. This finding is in contrast to Newton and training procedure was based on the Russian strength- McEvoy (45) who reported a strength gain using an training studies (28, 68), which suggested that a func- isotonic upper-body training protocol. The lack of tional strength progression should be established prior strength gains in Shenk’ study (56) was possibly due to velocity training. In addition, previous baseball to differences in testing methods for velocity or throwing studies only used either heavier or lighter strength assessment (8, 9, 53, 57). In contrast, Grant baseballs and the weighted baseball sequence in train- and Ritch (22) reported significant improvements ing never was varied. It was the purpose of this par- (25%) in strength and endurance after using surgical ticular study to determine the best sequence combi- tube exercises. During this preseason study (22), 19 nation using weighted baseballs in training. The pitch college baseball players performed surgical tubing ex- totals for weighted baseballs in sequence were kept to ercises with the dominant throwing arm. After 8 train- a 2:1 ratio (nonstandard to standard weight), as was ing weeks, IKN tests at speeds of 60Њ, 180Њ, and 300Њ previously suggested (28, 68). The findings of this revealed significant strength and endurance gains study revealed a significant increase of throwing ve- compared with the nontube, nondominate exercised locity in both training groups with either population. arm. Further tubing research is needed to substantiate As previously stated, baseball throwing and pitch- its effects on throwing velocity using high school or ing are high-velocity ballistic movements in which ve- collegiate pitchers engaging in preseason and in-sea- locity is directly related to performance. The neuro- son training. physiological mechanism for increasing movement ve- The last examples of specific resistance-training ex- locity resulting from the weighted implement training ercises that have a similar training stimulus as tubing is not fully understood at this time. Since the peak exercises are isotonic resistance wall pulley exercises force output of fast-contracting muscle fibers can be 4 and the Exer-genie cord. A review of the literature in- times greater that that of slow fibers (21), it has been dicated that there were 4 throwing velocity studies suggested that highly specific fast movements could conducted with wall pulley devices and the Exer-genie recruit and fire these high-threshold fast muscle fibers cord. These studies all reported significant increases (57). The results of the above-mentioned weighted im- in throwing velocity after training (7, 32, 52, 62). Brose plement training studies (13–15) may indicate that a et al. (7) reported a significant increase in throwing 154 DeRenne, Ho, and Murphy velocity among 21 collegiate freshman baseball players throwing velocity, the training protocol should include who trained 3 times per week for 6 weeks with wall a minimum of 3 training sessions per week for at least pulley resistance exercises. During each exercise ses- 8 weeks (22, 56). A minimal resistance that allows for sion, the players performed 1 set of 5 moderate-speed overload and high speeds for sufficient power output ‘‘throws’’ followed by 20 maximal repetitions. The should be used. Moreover, surgical tube exercise pro- overload wall pulley device was set at 10 lb of tension. vides the maximum overload near the end of the ROM, Likewise, Railey (52) and Sullivan (62) reported the whereas greater peak torques are achieved earlier in same results from isotonic resistance wall pulley ex- the ROM of general isotonic resistance training (46, ercises. In Railey’ study (52), 30 college baseball play- 57). The combination of these 2 training modes may ers trained 4 times per week for 7 weeks. The wall be needed when planning the total periodized throw- pulley exercise group performed nonprogressive resis- ing training program. Finally, the findings from the tance exercises simulating the throwing motion. Sul- above-mentioned wall pulley training studies (32, 52, livan’s study (62) involved 58 collegiate nonbaseball 62) suggested that general isotonic resistance training subjects who trained 4 days per week for 6 weeks. The may be better than wall pulley training for non–base- training protocols for the 2 wall pulley exercise groups ball players to improve throwing velocity. For high consisted of 3 sets of 10 repetitions performed with school and collegiate baseball players, they may use either progressive or nonprogressive resistance exer- general isotonic strength-training protocols combined cises simulating the throwing motion. Sullivan’s find- with specific surgical tubing or wall pulley exercises. ings (62) also revealed (a) there was a significant dif- However, additional research is needed to determine ference in throwing velocity between the general iso- the effects of surgical tube training on throwing ve- tonic weight-training group and the isotonic wall pul- locity. Table 1 presents the summary of the 11 specific ley exercise group in favor of the isotonic resistance throwing velocity training studies. weight-training group, and (b) progressive resistance exercise and throwing practice protocols had no sig- Practical Applications nificant effect on increasing throwing velocity. In a similar wall pulley training study, Logan et al. Throwing velocity can be increased by resistance (32) reported a significant increase in throwing veloc- training. A rationale for general, special, and specific ity (8.1 mph) using a resistance device called the Exer- resistance training to increase throwing velocity has genie cord. The subjects trained daily for 6 weeks. The been presented. The following findings and recom- results of this study (32) also revealed that the Exer- mendations relevant to strength and conditioning spe- genie training group had significantly greater throw- cialists and pitching coaches can be useful from the ing velocity gains than the practice throwing training review of literature. group. It is interesting to note that all 4 wall pulley ● Throwing velocity for high school and college studies resulted in significant increases in throwing players can be increased with general resistance train- velocities using nonprogressive resistance-training ing. The throwing-training protocol should be con- protocols. ducted over a minimum training period of 8 weeks In summary, weighted implement training can sig- using upper-body core exercises and a dumbbell nificantly increase throwing velocity for both high shoulder routine. school and college players by using weighted baseballs ● As the baseball player’s general muscular no more than 20% above or 20% below standard strength and throwing velocity adequately increases weight. Likewise, surgical tube and wall pulley exer- during the off-season, he should proceed into a special cises blend both resistance and speed of movement. upper-body power throwing velocity training pro- These specific exercises all attempt to mimic the total gram. The power-training protocol should consist of body throwing action and, therefore, train the specific ‘‘exploding’’ lightweight loads of 30–50% of 1RM dur- musculature at each joint. Conversely, traditional or ing the 6–8 training weeks. general weight-training exercises attempt to work on ● Specific resistance training consisting of light- isolated individual muscle groups. Additional advan- and heavyweighted baseballs may be the single best tages of the specific training concur that it may be method to increasing throwing velocity, provided the more beneficial to learn a task as a whole movement athlete follows the appropriate training protocol. Be- than to divide it into component parts (6, 34). Weight- fore a weighted implement training program com- ed implement training may elicit specific neurophysi- mences, an athlete should participate in a general to- ological adaptations in which selective motor unit ac- tal-body isotonic resistance program followed by an tivation/recruitment could occur. Further support of upper-body power-training regimen. this hypothesis comes from the fact that surgical tube ● In order to produce the maximum training re- training significantly increased throwing velocity in sults, selection of appropriate throwing training exer- collegiate baseball players with or without concurrent cises must be based on the athlete’s chronological age, increases in strength. For a significant increase in training experience, and skill level. Resistance Training and Throwing Velocity 155

References 24. HEIDERSCHEIT, B.C., K.P. MCLEAN, AND G.J. DAVIES. The effects of isokinetic vs. plyometric training on the shoulder internal 1. BAGONZI, J.A. The effects of graded weighted baseballs, free rotators. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 23(2):125–133. 1996. weight training, and simulative isometric exercise on the ve- 25. IVEY, F.M., J.H. CALHOUN,K.RUSCHE, AND J. BIERSCHENK. Iso- locity of a thrown baseball. Master’s thesis, Indiana University, kinetic testing of shoulder strength: Normal values. Arch. Phys. 1978. Med. Rehabil. 66:384–386. 2. BAKER,D.Improving vertical jump performance through general, 26. JACKSON, J.B. The effects of weight training on the velocity of special, and specific strength training: A brief review. J. Strength a thrown baseball. Master’s thesis, Central Michigan University, Cond. Res. 10:131–136. 1996. 1994. 3. BEHM D.G. Surgical tubing for sport and velocity specific train- 27. KANEKO,M.,T.FUCHIMOTO,H.TOJI, AND K. SUEI. Training ing. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 10(4):66–70. 1988. effect of different loads on the force-velocity relationship and 4. BLOOMFIELD, B., B. BLANKSBY,T.ACKLAND, AND G. ALLISON. mechanical power output in human muscle. Scand. J. Sports Sci. Influence of strength training on overhead velocity of elite wa- 5(2):50–55. 1983. ter polo players. Aust. J. Sci. Med. Sport 22:63–67. 1990. 28. KONSTANTINOV, O. The training program for high level javelin 5. BOSCO,C.,P.V.KOMI,C.PITTERA, AND H. MONTONEV. Consid- throwers. Sov. Sports Rev. 14:130–134. 1979. erations of the training of elastic potential of human skeletal 29. KREIGHBAUM, E., K. BARTHELS, AND M. BARTHELS. Biomechanics: muscle. Volleyball Tech. J. 1(3):75–80. 1983. A Qualitative Approach for Studying Human Movement (4th ed.). 6. BRIGGS, G.E., AND L.K. WATERS. Training and transfer as a Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1996. function of component interaction. J. Exp. Psychol. 56:492–500. 30. LACHOWETZ,T.,J.EVON, AND J. PASTIGLIONE. The effects of an 1958. upper-body strength program on intercollegiate baseball 7. BROSE, D.E., AND D.L. HANSON. Effects of overload training on throwing velocity. J. Strength Cond. Res. 12:116–119. 1998. velocity and accuracy of throwing. Res. Q. 38:528–533. 1967. 31. LITWHILER,D.,AND L. HAMM. Overload: Effects on throwing 8. CAIOZZO, V.J. Alterations in the in vivo force velocity relation- velocity and accuracy. Athlet. J. 53:64–65. 1973. ships. Med. Sci. Exerc. 12(2):134. 1980. 32. LOGAN, G.A., W.C. MCKINNEY, AND W. R OWE. Effect of resis- 9. CARR, L.S., R.K. SCONLEE, AND A.G. FISHER. Effects of fast and tance through a throwing range of motion on the velocity of a slow isokinetic weight training on strength and endurance [Ab- baseball. Percept. Motor Skills 25:55–58. 1966. stract]. Med. Sci. Exerc. 13(2):108. 1981. 33. LYTTLE, A.D., G.J. WILSON, AND K.J. OSTROWSKI. Enhancing 10. CHU,D.,AND R. PANARIELLO. Sport-specific plyometrics: Base- performance: Maximum power versus combined weights and ball pitching. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 11(3):81. 1989. plyometrics training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 10(3):173–179. 1996. 11. COOK, E.E., V.L. GRAY,E.SAVINAR-NOQUE, AND J. MEDEIROS. 34. MACGULGAN,F.J.,AND E.F. MACCASLIN. Whole and part meth- Shoulder antagonistic strength ratios: A comparison between ods of learning a perceptual motor skill. Am. J. Psychol. 68:658– collegiate level baseball pitchers and nonpitchers. J. Orthop. 661. 1955. Sports Phys. Ther. 8:451–461. 1987. 35. MALONE, T.R., ED. Evaluation of Isokinetic Equipment. Baltimore: 12. DAVIES,G.A Compendium of Isokinetics in Clinical Usage: Work- Williams and Wilkins, 1988. pp. 2–4. shop and Clinical Notes. LaCrosse, WI: S and S Publishers, 1984. 36. MCEVOY, K.P., AND R.U. NEWTON. Baseball throwing speed 13. DERENNE, C. Increasing throwing velocity. Athlet. J. 65(9):36– and base running speed: The effects of ballistic resistance train- 39. 1985. ing. J. Strength Cond. Res. 12(4):216–221. 1998. 14. DERENNE,C.,B.P.BUXTON, R.K. HETZLER, AND K.W. HO.Ef- 37. MILLER, J. Medicine ball training for throwers. Natl. Strength fects of under-and over-weighted implement training on pitch- Cond. Assoc. J. 9(1):32–33. 1987. ing velocity. J. Strength Cond. Res. 8:247–250. 1994. 38. MOFFROID, M., R. WHIPPLE,J.HOFKOSH,E.LOWMAN, AND H. 15. DERENNE, C., K. HO, AND A. BLITZBLAU. Effects of weighted THISTLE. A study of isokinetic exercise. Phys. Ther. 49:735–747. implement training on throwing velocity. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 1969. 4:16–19. 1990. 39. MORITANI, T., M. MURO,K.ISHIDA, AND S. TAGUCHI. Electro- 16. EDWARDS, D.E. Comparing proprioceptive neuromuscular fa- physiological analyses of the effects of muscle power training. cilitation and isotonic weight exercises to the pitching velocity Res. J. Phys. Ed. Jpn. 1:23–32. 1987. of college baseball pitchers. Master’s thesis, University of Ne- 40. National Strength and Conditioning Association Roundtable. vada at Reno, 1991. Determining factors of strength—Part 1. Natl. Strength Cond. J. 17. EGSTROM, G.H., G.A. LOGAN, AND E.L. WALLIS. Acquisition of 7(1):10–19, 22–23. 1985. throwing skill involving projectiles of varying weight. Res. Q. 41. National Strength and Conditioning Association Roundtable. 31:420–425. 1960. Determining factors of strength—Part 2. Natl. Strength Cond. 18. ELIAS, J. The effect of ‘‘overload’’ training on speed in baseball Assoc. J. 7(2):10–17. 1985. pitching. Master’ theses, Springfield College, 1964. 42. NICHOLAS, J., L.R. ROBINSON,A.LOGAN, AND R. ROBERTSON. 19. ELLENBECKER, T.S., T.G. DAVIS, AND M.J. ROWINSKI. Concentric Isokinetic testing in young nonathletic able-bodied subjects. versus eccentric isokinetic strengthening of the rotator cuff. Ob- Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 70:210–213. 1985. jective versus functional test. Am. J. Sports Med. 16:64–69. 1988. 43. NEWTON, R.U., AND W. J. K RAEMER. Developing explosive mus- 20. ELLIOTT, B.C., G.J. WILSON, AND G.K. KERR. A biomechanical cular power: Implications for a mixed methods training strat- analysis of the sticking region in the bench press. Med. Sci. egy. Strength Cond. 16(5):20–31. 1994. Exerc. 21:450–462. 1989. 44. NEWTON, R.U., W.J. KRAEMER,K.HAKKINEN, B.J. HUMPHRIES, 21. FAULKNER, J.A., D.R. CLAFLIN, AND K.K. MCCULLY. Power out- AND A.J. MURPHY. Kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activation put of fast and slow fibers from human skeleton muscle. In: during explosive upper-body movements. J. Appl. Biomed. 12: Human Muscle Power. N.L. Jones, N. McCarney, and A.J. Mc- 31–43. 1996. Comas, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1986. pp. 81–91. 45. NEWTON, R.U., AND K.P. MCEVOY. Baseball throwing velocity: 22. GRANT, L.W., AND J.M. RITCH. RX: Rubber tubing. Manage. A comparison of medicine ball training and weight training. J. Phys. Ther. 8(6):10–15. 1988. Strength Cond. Res. 8:198–203. 1994. 23. GREENFIELD, B., R. DONATELLI, M.J. WOODEN,J.WILKS. Isoki- 46. OSTERNIG, L.R. Optimal isokinetic loads and velocities produc- netic evaluation of shoulder rotational strength between the ing muscular power in human subjects. Arch. Phys. Med. Reh- plane of the scapula and the frontal plane. Am. J. Sports Med. abil. 56:152–155. 1975. 18:124–128. 1990. 47. PAPPAS, A., R. ZAWACKI, AND T. S ULLIVAN. Biomechanics of 156 DeRenne, Ho, and Murphy

baseball pitching. A preliminary report. Am. J. Sports Med. 13: 61. STONE, M.H., H. O’BRYANT, AND J. GARHAMMER. A hypothet- 216–222. 1985. ical model for strength training. J. Sports Med. 21:342–351. 1981. 48. PETERSON,S.,J.WESSELL,K.RAGNALL,H.WILKINS,A.QUIN- 62. SULLIVAN, J.W. The effects of three experimental training fac- NEY, AND H. WEGNER. Inﬂuence of concentric resistance train- tors upon baseball throwing velocity and selected strength ing on concentric and eccentric strength. Arch. Phys. Med. Reh- measures. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1970. abil. 71:101–105. 1990. 63. SWANGARD, T.M. The effect of isotonic weight training pro- 49. POPESCUE, M.G. Weight training and the velocity of a baseball. grams on the development of bat swinging, throwing, and run- Athlet. J. 55:74–105–106. 1975. ning ability of college baseball players. Master’s thesis, Univer- 50. POTTEIGER, J.A., H.N. WILLIFORD, D.L. BLESSING, AND J. SMIDT. sity of Oregon, 1965. Effect of two training methods on improving baseball perfor- 64. THOMPSON, C.W., AND E.T. MARTIN. Weight training and base- mance variables. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 6:2–6. 1992. ball throwing speed. J. Assoc. Phys. Mental Rehabil. 19:194–196. 51. RADCLIFFE, J. Plyometric exercise: The medicine ball overhead 1965. pass. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 12(1):26–27. 1990. 65. TOYOSHIMA,S.,T.HOSHIKAWA, AND M. MIYASHITA. Contribu- 52. RAILEY, J.H. The effect of two methods of resistance exercise tions of the body parts to throwing performance. In: Biome- on baseball throwing velocity. Master’s thesis, Arizona State chanics IV. R.C. Nelson and C.A. Morehouse, eds. Baltimore: University, 1964. University Park Press, 1974. pp. 169–174. 53. RASCH,P.J.,AND L.E. MOREHOUSE. Effect of static and dynamic 66. TOYOSHIMA,S.,AND M. MIYASHITA. Force-velocity relation in exercise on muscular strength and hypertrophy. J. Appl. Phys. throwing. Res. Q. 44:86–95. 1973. 11(1):29–34. 1957. 67. VAN HUSS, W.D., L. ALBRECHT,R.NELSON, AND R. HAGERMAN. 54. RUTHERFORD, O.M., C.A. GREIG, A.J. SARGENT, AND D.A. JONES. Effect of overload warm-up on the velocity and accuracy of Strength training and power output: Transference effects in the throwing. Res. Q. 33:472–475. human quadriceps muscle. J. Sport Sci. 4:101–107. 1986. 68. VASILIEV, L.A. Use of different weights to develop specialized 55. SCHMIDTBLEICHER, D., A. GOLLHOFER, AND U. FRICK. Effects of speed-strength. Sov. Sports Rev. 18:49–52. 1983. a stretch-shortening typed training on the performance capa- 69. WATHEN,D.,AND F. R OLL. Training methods and modes. In: bility and innervation characteristics of leg extensor muscles. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. T.R. Baechle, ed. In: Biomechanics XI-A (Vol. 7-A). G. deGroot, A.P. Hollander, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1994. pp. 404–405. P.A. Huijing, and G.J. van Ingen Schenau, eds. Amsterdam: 70. WILSON,G.,R.U.NEWTON,A.MURPHY, AND J. HUMPHRIES.The Free University Press, 1988. pp. 185–189. optimal training load for the development of dynamic athletic 56. SHENK, B.S. Effect of two strength training programs on throw- performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 25(11):1279–1286. 1993. ing velocity. Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 1990. 71. WOODEN, M.J., B. GREENFIELD,M.JOHANSON,L.LITZELMAN, 57. SHERMAN, W.M., M.J. PLYLEY, AND D. VOGELGESAND. Isokinetic M. MUNDRANE, AND R.A. DONATELLI. Effects of strength train- strength during rehabilitation following arthrotomy: Speciﬁcity ing on throwing velocity and shoulder muscle performance in of speed. Athlet. Training 16:138–141. 1981. teenage baseball players. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 15:223–228. 58. SMITH,J.L.,B.BETTS, V.R. EDGERTON, AND R.F. ZERNICKE. Rapid 1992. ankle extension during paw shakes. Selective recruitment of fast ankle extensors. J. Neurophysiol. 43:612–620. 1980. Acknowledgments 59. SMITH, M.J., AND P. M ELTON. Isokinetic versus isotonic variable resistance training. Am. J. Sports Med. 9:275–278. 1981. The authors would like to recognize and thank Tom 60. STONE, M.H., R. JOHNSON, AND D. CARTER. A short term com- House, professional pitching instructor, for his shared parison of two different methods of resistive training on leg expertise and guidance in support of the original strength and power. Athlet. Training 14:158–160. 1979. manuscript.