An Interval Throwing Program for Baseball Pitchers Based upon Workload Data.
Michael M Reinold, Brittany Dowling, Glenn S Fleisig and 4 others
PMID 38439773WHAT IT FOUND
A new baseball throwing program is proposed to replace an older one.
It uses sensor data to keep workload changes gradual over 217 days. No patients were treated or outcomes measured, so this is a theoretical model rather than evidence that it works.
Key findings
01The paper proposes an updated interval throwing program designed to maintain a safer workload progression ratio compared to an older program.
02The proposed program is 217 days long and uses specific daily throw counts and distances to control acute and chronic workload.
03No clinical outcomes or patient data were reported; the study only compares calculated workload metrics between two theoretical programs.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This is not a clinical trial. No patients were treated, and no functional or injury outcomes were measured. The workload calculations rely on biomechanical models derived from healthy pitchers, which may not accurately reflect the tissue healing or mechanics of an injured pitcher. The authors state the program is based on their clinical experience and current understanding, not on tested interventions. The model assumes the pitcher starts with zero chronic workload, which may not be true if they have already begun throwing drills.
Declared interests
The authors use data from a commercial sensor company (Motus Global/Driveline Baseball). The paper does not explicitly state if the authors have financial ties to these companies, but the methodology relies heavily on their proprietary data and models.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the calculated workload metrics as proof that this new program prevents injury or improves return-to-play rates. The study reports no patient outcomes, so the 'better' workload numbers are theoretical projections, not clinical results.