Acute Upper-Body and Lower-Body Neuromuscular Fatigue Effect on Baseball Pitchers' Velocity: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Tremblay, M, Anderson Sirois, S, Verville, W, Auger, M, Abboud, J, and Descarreaux, M. Acute upper-body and lower-body neuromuscular fatigue effect on baseball pitchers' velocity: A pilot study. J Strength Cond Res 38(8): 1447-1452, 2024-The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the acute effect of upper-body and lower-body neuromuscular fatigue protocols on baseball pitchers' velocity. Sixteen baseball pitchers were recruited, and a crossover design was used to meet the study purpose. Pitchers were tested twice, 7 days apart, with their upper-body and lower-body explosiveness, pitching velocity, and muscle soreness perception of their throwing arm (forearm flexors, biceps, anterior deltoid, and upper trapezius muscles) assessed before and after an upper-body and lower-body neuromuscular fatigue protocol. Two-way analysis of variances and paired t tests ( p < 0.05) were used to identify and compare prescores and postscores. Following both fatigue protocols, results revealed a significant decrease in time for pitching velocity ( p = 0.005, ηp 2 = 0.462), and increases in muscle soreness perception of the forearm flexors ( p = 0.005, ηp 2 = 0.470), anterior deltoid ( p = 0.045, ηp 2 = 0.274), and upper trapezius ( p = 0.023, ηp 2 = 0.339) muscles. Paired t test results showed a significant decrease in preneuromuscular and postneuromuscular fatigue protocol in the upper-body ( p < 0.01) and lower-body ( p < 0.01) explosiveness scores. These pilot study results show the impact of different exercise protocols on pitchers' explosiveness, velocity, and muscle soreness perception emphasizing the need for further investigation into the acute effect of exercise targeting the upper or lower-body on pitching performance, specifically at the pitcher's position.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".