Interval Throwing Programs of Various Duration for Baseball Players Based on Biomechanical Workload Data.

No athlete was followed through any of these four programs. The paper reports day counts and modelled workload ratios, not return-to-play rates, re-injury, or how many athletes complete the progression. The workload figures rest on estimated elbow varus torque derived from throwing distance in 34 healthy college players, so they may not reflect what an injured athlete at a different age, level or body size actually loads. The paper's statement that these programs return athletes without setbacks or re-injury comes from the authors' own experience, described in the text as anecdotal, not from data collected on it. The model is built on elbow loads; the authors note it does not necessarily apply to the shoulder, though they use it for shoulder and elbow injuries on the basis that throwing shoulder internal rotation torque is similar in size to elbow varus torque. The programs were not compared with each other or with any other return-to-throw approach, so the claim that they keep workload steadier than traditional programs is a design property, not a tested outcome.

Not reported in the text supplied. There is no funding statement and no conflict-of-interest declaration among the sentences given. The methods name the commercial wearable used to collect the throwing data (Driveline Pulse, Driveline Baseball), and its placement was verified by one of the authors throughout data collection.

Do not read these four programs as tested treatments. No players were followed through any of them, and the authors' claim that athletes return without setbacks is described in the paper itself as their own experience, not a measured result. Every load figure comes from modelled throwing by healthy college players, not from injured athletes.