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.
Colquhoun, RJ, Gai, CM, Aguilar, D, Bove, D, Dolan, J, Vargas, A, Couvillion, K, Jenkins, NDM, and Campbell, BI. Training volume, not frequency, indicative of maximal strength adaptations to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 32(5): 1207-1213, 2018-To compare the effects of a high versus a moderate training frequency on maximal strength and body composition. Twenty-eight young, healthy resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to either: 3× per week (3×; n = 16) or 6× per week (6×; n = 12). Dependent variables (DVs) assessed at baseline and after the 6-week training intervention included: squat 1 repetition maximum (SQ1RM), bench press 1RM (BP1RM), deadlift 1RM (DL1RM), powerlifting total (PLT), Wilk's coefficient (WC), fat-free mass (FFM), and fat mass. Data for each DV were analyzed using a 2 × 2 between-within factorial repeated-measures analysis of variance. There was a main effect for time (p < 0.001) for SQ1RM (3×: +16.8 kg; 6×: +16.7 kg), BP1RM (3×: +7.8 kg; 6×: +8.8 kg), DL1RM (3×: +19 kg; 6×: +21 kg), PLT (3×: +43.6 kg; 6×: +46.5 kg), WC (3×: +27; 6×: +27.1), and FFM (3×: +1.7 kg; 6×: +2.6 kg). There were no group × time interactions or main effects for group. The primary finding was that 6 weeks of resistance training led to significant increases in maximal strength and FFM. In addition, it seems that increased training frequency does not lead to additional strength improvements when volume and intensity are equated. High-frequency (6× per week) resistance training does not seem to offer additional strength and hypertrophy benefits over lower frequency (3× per week) when volume and intensity are equated. Coaches and practitioners can therefore expect similar increases in strength and lean body mass with both 3 and 6 weekly sessions.
Colquhoun, RJ, Gai, CM, Walters, J, Brannon, AR, Kilpatrick, MW, D'Agostino, DP, and Campbell, WI. Comparison of powerlifting performance in trained men using traditional and flexible daily undulating periodization. J Strength Cond Res 31(2): 283-291, 2017-Daily undulating periodization (DUP) is a growing trend, both in practice and in the scientific literature. A new form of DUP, flexible daily undulating periodization (FDUP), allows for athletes to have some autonomy by choosing the order of their training. The purpose of this study was to compare an FDUP model to a traditional model of DUP on powerlifting performance in resistance-trained men. Twenty-five resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups: FDUP (N = 14) or DUP (N = 11). All participants possessed a minimum of 6 months of resistance training experience and were required to squat, bench press, and deadlift 125, 100, and 150% of their body mass, respectively. Dependent variables assessed at baseline and after the 9-week training program included bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM), squat 1RM, deadlift 1RM, powerlifting total, Wilks Coefficient, fat mass, and fat-free mass (FFM). Dependent variables assessed during each individual training session were motivation to train, Session Rating of Perceived Exertion (Session RPE), and satisfaction with training session. After the 9-week training program, no significant differences in intensity or volume were found between groups. Both groups significantly improved bench press 1RM (FDUP: +6.5 kg; DUP: +8.8 kg), squat 1RM (FDUP: +15.6 kg; DUP: +18.0 kg), deadlift 1RM (FDUP: +14.8 kg; DUP: +13.6 kg), powerlifting total (FDUP: +36.8 kg; DUP: +40.4 kg), and Wilks Coefficient (FDUP: +24.8; DUP: +26.0) over the course of study (p = <0.001 for each variable). There was also a significant increase in FFM (FDUP: +0.8 kg; DUP: +0.8 kg) for both groups (p = 0.003). There were no differences in motivation to train, session RPE, or satisfaction with training session measurements between groups (p = 0.369-0.702, respectively). In conclusion, FDUP seems to offer similar resistance training adaptations when compared with a traditional DUP in resistance-trained men.
BackgroundConsumption of pre-workout dietary supplements by both recreational and competitive athletes has increased dramatically in recent years. The purpose of this study was to determine the acute effects of a caffeine-containing pre-workout dietary supplement on various measures of performance including anaerobic power, upper and lower body power, and upper body strength in recreationally trained males.MethodsThirteen males (mean ± SD age = 24 ± 6 yrs; height = 180.3 ± 5 cm; body mass = 83.4 ± 9 kg) participated in this investigation in which they reported to the laboratory on four separate occasions, each separated by one week. Each subject underwent an initial familiarization session on week one followed by baseline (BA) performance testing on week two. Performance testing included a medicine ball put (MBP) to determine upper body explosive power, vertical jump test (VJ) to determine lower body explosive power, one-rep maximum bench press (1-RM) for determining upper body strength, and a Wingate Anaerobic Power Test (WAnT) to determine measures of anaerobic power. On week three, subjects were randomly assigned to ingest either a pre-workout supplement (SUP) or a placebo (PL) and again complete the performance testing protocol. Subjects were provided with the crossover treatment on the fourth and final week. Performance testing commenced 20-minute following ingestion of both treatments, which was similar to previous investigations.ResultsSignificant differences in anaerobic peak power relative to the WAnT were observed following ingestion of the SUP (782 ± 191 W) in comparison to the PL (722 ± 208 W; p = 0.003; effect size = 0.30) and BA (723 ± 205 W; p = 0.011; effect size = 0.28). Significant differences were also observed for anaerobic mean power following ingestion of the SUP (569 ± 133 W) in comparison to the PL (535 ± 149 W; p = 0.006; effect size = 0.24) and BA (538 ± 148 W; p = 0.020; effect size = 0.22). No significant differences between trials were observed for upper body power, lower body power, or upper body strength.ConclusionsIngestion of the pre-workout dietary supplement led to significant improvements in anaerobic peak and mean power values in comparison to the placebo and baseline treatments. No improvements were observed in upper and lower body power or upper body strength. Taken prior to exercise, a caffeine-containing pre-workout dietary supplement may improve anaerobic power performance.
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.
The liver enzyme cytochrome P450 1A2 (CYP1A2) is responsible for 90% of caffeine metabolism, while caffeine exerts many of its effects via antagonist binding to adenosine A2a receptors (ADORA2A). This study aimed to examine whether functional single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 1976T > C (ADORA2A; rs5751876) and −163C > A (CYP1A2; rs762551) influence the effect of caffeine on the postprandial glucose (GLU) response to a carbohydrate meal. We report that individuals with the 1976T > C CC, but not CT/TT genotypes display elevated GLU levels after consuming caffeine and carbohydrate (CHO + CAFF) versus carbohydrate only (CHO). The GLU area under the curve (AUC) was also greater during the CHO + CAFF condition compared to the CHO condition in CC, but not the CT/TT genotypes. The −163C > A AC/CC, but not AA, genotypes displayed greater GLU concentrations 60-min post meal during CHO + CAFF versus CHO. Our data suggest that caffeine-induced impairments in postprandial glycaemia are related to 1976T > C and −163C > A SNPs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.