The Effects of a "Sprint" Throwing Training Program on Aerobic Power, Estimated Lactate Threshold, Throwing Velocity and Fatigue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the effects of a specific arm "sprint" training program on VO2peak, estimated lactate threshold, overhand throwing velocity and fatigue. METHODS: 12 female subjects (age 20 ± 2.2 yrs) volunteered including six who were members of the University Women's Fastball team. Participants were randomly assigned to either the training group or a control group. Pre-post training performance measures included VO2peak performed on an arm ergometer, peak throwing velocity (average of three throws), and a 20-throw maximal velocity endurance test. The experimental group trained three days/week for three weeks, performing five sets (4 min rest between sets) of 20 throwing motions using exercise resistance bands. Throws were performed each 2.5 s and each set was performed on both arms. Training resistance was increased after the third and sixth training session. This training protocol is similar to previously successful "sprint" cycle training protocols. The control group was instructed to maintain their normal daily activities. RESULTS: Training resulted in a 18% improvement in VO2peak (pre 1.24 ± 0.08 L/min to post 1.46 ± 0.14 L/min (p<0.05)), a 21% improvement in estimated lactate threshold (pre 1.01 ± 0.21 L/min to post 1.21± 0.27 L/min (p<0.05)) and a 14% improvement in time to fatigue (pre 9.5 ± 0.6 min to post 10.8 ± 0.6 min (p<0.05)) on the incremental VO2peak test. As well faster peak ball velocity (pre 63.3 ± 4.1 km/hr-post 67.9 ± 3.7 km/hr (p<0.05)) was observed in the experimental group. No significant changes on any of the performance measures were observed pre-post in the control group. CONCLUSION: A "sprint" throwing training program is effective in increasing an individual's arm-exercise VO2 peak and estimated lactate threshold, as well as improving peak throwing velocity and endurance during repeated overhand throws.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".