Strength in Numbers #65
“Why” is the most critical question in sports science.
In my opinion, it leads to the most breakthroughs and an understanding to apply the knowledge for new tests to try out (that generally fail many times before acceptance.)
I’ve seen this play out by visiting the MLB teams in Arizona. I love meeting with their incredibly bright people, who are usually paid to shut their mouths.
At first, some people avoid this type of questioning, but after a while, it becomes a part of their life, and they crave it. A ton of magic happens by openly sharing insights and allowing ideas to get carved up.
I don’t think these professionals have ever been asked to lay all the cards on the table.
In many ways, I learn much more than what I give in return, and I’ll cover some of the observations I’ve made while on the road.
“WHY” QUESTION # 1
The first topic we speak about is how they program throwing arm training.
Getting everyone in the room to get to all the answers is essential. Meeting with skill coaches, strength coaches, medical staff members, analysts, sports scientists, player development administration, and scouts at the same time doesn’t happen often, but they all give essential insights.
I put many people on the spot with “why” questions about training design.
My intention is never to make anyone look bad. Instead, it’s to get the room to understand each other, identify where imbalances occur, and make the player development model off the field more biomechanically specific to the sport.
I framed my first question as this,
“How many exercises would you say are bilateral and unilateral in your program? If you could put a percentage on them, what percentage is bilateral and what percentage is unilateral?”
It seems like a simple question but has a complex answer.
I find it interesting that most training is bilateral across strength and sports medicine, as the potential of generating force is perceived as more critical, and it reduces the time spent in training.
I get this, but in reality, what needs to happen is that we need to train for greater muscular recruitment, and that does not mean absolute strength achieved in a squat, deadlift, or bench press.
Complex lifts are important, but it’s not the complex answer I am looking for across departments.
As I continue diving deep, I find that most programs are 50/50 bilateral to unilateral for both upper and lower extremity training.
Then, I follow up with what percentage of baseball movement is bilateral and unilateral, and it starts to paint a clearer picture.
There are brief instances in the pitching delivery where the legs are in double support, meaning two feet on the ground, but for the act of pitching or throwing, it’s by and large unilateral.
Regarding hitting, there is a more extended period where the athlete is in double support through rotation, but there is an instant where the back foot is lifted from the ground to increase momentum into the lead leg block.
Hitting has a clear bilateral difference with the upper body, so bilateral recruitment makes sense. Still, all hitters also throw (except the DH), so that component must be acknowledged in training.
My work at Louisiana Tech has afforded me many great insights. First, we identified a clear unilateral and bilateral lower body power bias in pitchers. We calculated something called the Bilateral Index. The formula is simplified here, but it is as follows:
Bilateral Index (%) = [[2 FOOT POWER/ STRIDE LEG POWER + DRIVE LEG POWER] -1]*100
Here we examine the bilateral power deficits with a two-foot jump versus the addition of single leg power with each leg combined. A negative number means athletes are more unilateral.
We are still researching this, but pitchers appear to be heavily unilateral, and they should. The extension of this work needs to illustrate at what level this deficit makes you better.
Here’s an example equation using wattage (W) for bilateral vertical jumping performance relative to unilateral vertical jumping performance in power production.
Bilateral Index (%) =[[7000W (2FT Power)/ (4200 W) + (3700 W)] -1]*100 = -11.39
This example shows that this athlete has a bilateral power deficit of 11.39%.
For the upper body, we consider being 1:1 would be perfect, but remember that feature is within the same arm by comparing the front and back sides of the shoulder.
Regarding the lower body, I do not suspect performance by having identical bilateral power to the addition of unilateral power performances.
Our average was a deficit of 25% in collegiate pitchers.
There’s so much more information on this in our up-and-coming Certified Pitching Biomechanist Course that I cannot wait for you to take.
“WHY” QUESTION # 2
This second hard question concerns the selection of resistance. I gulped as most teams utilize cuff weights, light dumbbells (some not allowed to use more than 8 lbs), and bands that do not involve grip.
Thankfully, I demonstrated a grittier approach to boosting the max strength of the throwing arm by being on the eccentric side of the curve. Regarding light dumbbells, the momentum reduces muscle activation, which is vital.
When using cuff weights, it has negligible activation of the flexor pronator mass, and when using bands without gripping, the flexor-pronator mass muscle is furthered under stimulation. Additionally, recruitment of the shoulder musculature is lowered, especially if the athlete is using the same band time after time after time.
Essentially there is no stimulus for muscle growth, and the training is primarily endurance driven.
Imagine a bilateral lower body program in a unilateral sport and an endurance-based upper extremity program in a maximum arm power sport (arm speed x arm force).
It’s not biomechanically relevant and further depletes throwing arm muscles of energy, while maximum arm strength and recruitment are non-existent. Therefore, the throwing arm neuromechanical connection in sport is extreme from the training it receives in the weight room.
There’s way more to this story, but the essential nuggets to glean from this are to sit down as an entire staff to identify what does and does not make sense.
The questions asked above suggest that athletes may not be functioning well unilaterally, and the program needs to focus on their lower body programming to create more of a bilateral deficit. And it may be better to integrate Crossover Symmetry bands within training to increase the throwing arm’s maximum strength for both shoulder and flexor-pronator mass recruitment and to make the internal and external rotator cuff more balanced.
Just like identifying imbalances in lower body power, you need to assess strength so that the programs are specific to the athlete.
After reading this, you may be saying… “Well, if we grip all the time, we are going to wear out our forearm muscles and increase the risk of Tommy John Surgery,” or “I don’t want to challenge the throwing arm too much compared to games as it may add to overuse,” or my favorite, “If you lift more than 8lbs, you will reduce the activation of the rotator cuff and cause the deltoid to recruit more.”
My response is the following, “If you treat them like porcelain, they will break.”
I cannot wait for another MLB visit to get ideas out in the open, look at training critically, and evaluate exercise selection in a biomechanical and time-efficient manner.
I promise you will enjoy what you are going to see and hear. Together, we will lead you and your team on a path to reduce throwing arm effort and post-throwing strength losses. It’s what I always say – STRENGTH MATTERS MOST.