Kyle Yamashiro

Shoulder Muscle Activity and Function in Common Shoulder Rehabilitation Exercises

The rotator cuff performs multiple functions during shoulder exercises, including glenohumeral abduction, external rotation (ER) and internal rotation (IR). The rotator cuff also stabilizes the glenohumeral joint and controls humeral head translations. The infraspinatus and subscapularis have significant roles in scapular plane abduction (scaption), generating forces that are two to three times greater than supraspinatus force. However, the supraspinatus still remains a more effective shoulder abductor because of its more effective moment arm.Both the deltoids and rotator cuff provide significant abduction torque, with an estimated contribution up to 35–65% by the middle deltoid, 30% by the subscapularis, 25% by the supraspinatus, 10% by the infraspinatus and 2% by the anterior deltoid. During abduction, middle deltoid force has been estimated to be 434 N, followed by 323N from the anterior deltoid, 283N from the subscapularis, 205N from the infraspinatus, and 117N from the supraspinatus. These forces are generated not only to abduct the shoulder but also to stabilize the joint and neutralize the antagonistic effects of undesirable actions. Relatively high force from the rotator cuff not only helps abduct the shoulder but also neutralizes the superior directed force generated by the deltoids at lower abduction angles. Even though anterior deltoid force is relatively high, its ability to abduct the shoulder is low due to a very small moment arm, especially at low abduction angles. The deltoids are more effective abductors at higher abduction angles while the rotator cuff muscles are more effective abductors at lower abduction angles.During maximum humeral elevation the scapula normally upwardly rotates 45–55°, posterior tilts 20–40° and externally rotates 15–35°. The scapular muscles are important during humeral elevation because they cause these motions, especially the serratus anterior, which contributes to scapular upward rotation, posterior tilt and ER. The serratus anterior also helps stabilize the medial border and inferior angle of the scapular, preventing scapular IR (winging) and anterior tilt. If normal scapular movements are disrupted by abnormal scapular muscle firing patterns, weakness, fatigue, or injury, the shoulder complex functions less efficiency and injury risk increases.Scapula position and humeral rotation can affect injury risk during humeral elevation. Compared with scapular protraction, scapular retraction has been shown to both increase subacromial space width and enhance supraspinatus force production during humeral elevation. Moreover, scapular IR and scapular anterior tilt, both of which decrease subacromial space width and increase impingement risk, are greater when performing scaption with IR (‘empty can’) compared with scaption with ER (‘full can’).There are several exercises in the literature that exhibit high to very high activity from the rotator cuff, deltoids and scapular muscles, such as prone horizontal abduction at 100° abduction with ER, flexion and abduction with ER, ‘full can’ and ‘empty can’, D1 and D2 diagonal pattern flexion and e The serratus anterior also helps stabilize the medial border and inferior angle of the scapular, preventing scapular IR (winging) and anterior tilt. If normal scapular movements are disrupted by abnormal scapular muscle firing patterns, weakness, fatigue, or injury, the shoulder complex functions less efficiency and injury risk increases.Scapula position and humeral rotation can affect injury risk during humeral elevation. Compared with scapular protraction, scapular retraction has been shown to both increase subacromial space width and enhance supraspinatus force production during humeral elevation. Moreover, scapular IR and scapular anterior tilt, both of which decrease subacromial space width and increase impingement risk, are greater when performing scaption with IR (‘empty can’) compared with scaption with ER (‘full can’).There are several exercises in the literature that exhibit high to very high activity from the rotator cuff, deltoids and scapular muscles, such as prone horizontal abduction at 100° abduction with ER, flexion and abduction with ER, ‘full can’ and ‘empty can’, D1 and D2 diagonal pattern flexion and extension, ER and IR at 0° and 90° abduction, standing extension from 90–0°, a variety of weight-bearing upper extremity exercises, such as the push-up, standing scapular dynamic hug, forward scapular punch, and rowing type exercises. Supraspinatus activity is similar between ‘empty can’ and ‘full can’ exercises, although the ‘full can’ results in less risk of subacromial impingement. Infraspinatus and subscapularis activity have generally been reported to be higher in the ‘full can’ compared with the ‘empty can’, while posterior deltoid activity has been reported to be higher in the ‘empty can’ than the ‘full can’.

Comparison of Three Baseball-Specific 6-Week Training Programs on Throwing Velocity in High School Baseball Players

Abstract Escamilla, RF, Ionno, M, deMahy, MS, Fleisig, GS, Wilk, KE, Yamashiro, K, Mikla, T, Paulos, L, and Andrews, JR. Comparison of three baseball-specific 6-week training programs on throwing velocity in high school baseball players. J Strength Cond Res 26(7): 1767–1781, 2012. Throwing velocity is an important baseball performance variable for baseball pitchers, because greater throwing velocity results in less time for hitters to make a decision to swing. Throwing velocity is also an important baseball performance variable for position players, because greater throwing velocity results in decreased time for a runner to advance to the next base. This study compared the effects of 3 baseball-specific 6-week training programs on maximum throwing velocity. Sixty-eight high school baseball players 14–17 years of age were randomly and equally divided into 3 training groups and a nontraining control group. The 3 training groups were the Throwers Ten (TT), Keiser Pneumatic (KP), and Plyometric (PLY). Each training group trained 3 d·wk−1 for 6 weeks, which comprised approximately 5–10 minutes for warm-up, 45 minutes of resistance training, and 5–10 for cool-down. Throwing velocity was assessed before (pretest) and just after (posttest) the 6-week training program for all the subjects. A 2-factor repeated measures analysis of variance with post hoc paired t-tests was used to assess throwing velocity differences (p < 0.05). Compared with pretest throwing velocity values, posttest throwing velocity values were significantly greater in the TT group (1.7% increase), the KP group (1.2% increase), and the PLY group (2.0% increase) but not significantly different in the control group. These results demonstrate that all 3 training programs were effective in increasing throwing velocity in high school baseball players, but the results of this study did not demonstrate that 1 resistance training program was more effective than another resistance training program in increasing throwing velocity.

Effects of a 4-Week Youth Baseball Conditioning Program on Throwing Velocity

Escamilla, RF, Fleisig, GS, Yamashiro, K, Mikla, T, Dunning, R, Paulos, L, and Andrews, JR. Effects of a 4-week youth baseball conditioning program on throwing velocity. J Strength Cond Res 24(12): 3247-3254, 2010-Effects of a 4-week youth baseball conditioning program on throwing velocity. This study examined the effects of a 4-week youth baseball conditioning program on maximum throwing velocity. Thirty-four youth baseball players (11-15 years of age) were randomly and equally divided into control and training groups. The training group performed 3 sessions (each 75 minutes) weekly for 4 weeks, which comprised a sport specific warm-up, resistance training with elastic tubing, a throwing program, and stretching. Throwing velocity was assessed initially and at the end of the 4-week conditioning program for both control and training groups. The level of significance used was p < 0.05. After the 4-week conditioning program, throwing velocity increased significantly (from 25.1 ± 2.8 to 26.1 ± 2.8 m·s−1) in the training group but did not significantly increase in the control group (from 24.2 ± 3.6 to 24.0 ± 3.9 m·s−1). These results demonstrate that the short-term 4-week baseball conditioning program was effective in increasing throwing velocity in youth baseball players. Increased throwing velocity may be helpful for pitchers (less time for hitters to swing) and position players (decreased time for a runner to advance to the next base).

Effects of a Short-Duration Stretching Drill After Pitching on Elbow and Shoulder Range of Motion in Professional Baseball Pitchers

Background: A glenohumeral internal rotation (IR) deficit or a total rotational motion (IR plus external rotation [ER]) deficit in the throwing shoulder compared with the nonthrowing shoulder has been shown to increase the risk of shoulder and elbow injuries. After a pitching session, both IR and total rotational motion deficits have been shown to occur naturally for an extended period of time in asymptomatic pitchers, but it is unclear how to best control these deficits between pitching sessions. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to determine whether performing a short-duration stretching/calisthenics drill after pitching will result in an increase in IR, ER, total rotational motion, and elbow extension in professional baseball pitchers. It was hypothesized that these shoulder and elbow passive range of motion (PROM) measurements would all decrease after pitching but would subsequently return to prepitching values after the short-duration stretching/calisthenics drill. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A convenience sample of 20 male professional baseball pitchers served as study participants. The following sequence of activities was performed for all participants: (1) a 5- to 10-minute dynamic warm-up consisting of running and light throwing, (2) elbow extension and IR and ER PROM measurements taken before pitching, (3) 40 full-effort pitches off the pitching mound, (4) 8 minutes of rest, (5) elbow extension and IR and ER PROM measurements taken after pitching, (6) a short-duration stretching/calisthenics drill (two-out drill), and (7) elbow extension and IR and ER PROM measurements taken after the two-out drill. A 1-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (P < .05) was employed to assess differences in elbow extension, IR, ER, and total rotational motion in the 3 measurement conditions (prepitching, postpitching, and postdrill). To assess intrarater and interrater reliability, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated, and the measurement error was calculated using the standard error of measurement (SEM). Results: Significant differences were observed among the 3 conditions for ER (P = .002), IR (P = .027), and total rotational motion (P < .001), but there was no significant difference in elbow extension (P = .117). Bonferroni post hoc analyses revealed (1) significantly greater ER during prepitching and postdrill versus the postpitching condition (94° ± 7° [prepitching] and 94° ± 8° [postdrill] vs 88° ± 8°; P = .010 and .005, respectively), (2) significantly greater IR during prepitching and postdrill versus the postpitching condition (36° ± 10° [prepitching] and 35° ± 9° [postdrill] vs 30° ± 10°; P = .034 and .043, respectively), and (3) significantly greater total rotational motion during prepitching and postdrill versus the postpitching condition (129° ± 13° [prepitching] and 129° ± 13° [postdrill] vs 119° ± 13°; P = .034 and .004, respectively). There were no significant differences in ER, IR, or total rotational motion between the prepitching and postdrill conditions (P > .999 for all). The intrarater reliability (ICC3,1) was 0.91 for ER (SEM, 1.3°) and 0.90 for IR (SEM, 1.9°), and the interrater reliability (ICC2,1) was 0.81 for ER (SEM, 3.3°) and 0.77 for IR (SEM, 4.3°). Conclusion: After a 40-pitch bullpen session, IR and ER PROM as well as total rotational motion were significantly lower than prepitching values; however, these deficits were restored back to their prepitching levels after the players performed the two-out drill, which may increase pitching performance and decrease the risk of shoulder and elbow injuries. More research is needed to test these hypotheses and assess the clinical efficacy of the two-out drill. Clinical Relevance: The findings from the current study will assist clinicians better understand the positive effects of performing a short duration stretching/calisthenics drill on shoulder internal and external rotation range of motion between innings while pitching during a baseball game.