Noncompatibility of Power and Endurance Training Among College Baseball Players

Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, AT Still University, Mesa, Arizona, USA.
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Impact Factor: 2.08). 01/2008; 22(1):230-4. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31815fa038
Source: PubMed


Exercise professionals seeking to develop evidence-based training programs rely on several training principles demonstrated through research and professional experience. In an effort to further research examining these principles, an investigation was designed and completed to evaluate the compatibility of cardiovascular endurance and neuromuscular power training. Sixteen Division-I collegiate baseball players were divided into two training groups with lower body power measured before and after their college playing season. The two groups differed in training in that one group performed moderate- to high-intense cardiovascular endurance training 3-4 days per week throughout the season, while the other group participated in speed/speed endurance training. A significant difference between groups (P < .05) was identified in the change in lower body power during the baseball season. During the season, the endurance training group decreased an average of 39.50 +/- 128.03 watts while the speed group improved an average of 210.63 +/- 168.96 watts. These data demonstrate that moderate- to high-intense cardiovascular endurance and neuromuscular power training do not appear to be compatible when performed simultaneously. For baseball players, athletes who rely heavily on power and speed, conventional baseball conditioning involving significant amounts of cardiovascular endurance training should be altered to include more speed/power interval training.

Download full-text


Available from: Mark D Peterson, Jan 09, 2015
  • Source
    • "Vertical jump performance has been shown to accurately evaluate power development in the lower limbs extensor muscles (Samozino et al. 2008). It has been suggested that the ability to develop high power output and RFD is more inhibited by combining strength training with high volume endurance training than the ability to produce high force during low muscle shortening velocities; such as for example during a 1RM lift (Dudley and Djamil 1985; Dudley and Fleck 1987; Häkkinen et al. 2003; Kraemer et al. 1995; Rhea et al. 2008). Indeed, Häkkinen et al. (2003) did not find any improvement in RFD in the group performing concurrent training despite increased muscle size and 1RM strength, while the group performing only strength training improved peak RFD. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of the present study was to compare the effect of 12 weeks of strength training combined with a large volume of endurance training with the effect of strength training alone on the strength training adaptations. Well-trained cyclists with no strength training experience performed heavy strength training twice a week in addition to a high volume of endurance training during a 12-week preparatory period (S + E; n = 11). A group of non-strength trained individuals performed the same strength training as S + E, but without added endurance training (S; n = 7). Thigh muscle cross-sectional area, 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in leg exercises, squat jump performance, and peak rate of force development (RFD) were measured. Following the intervention period, both S + E and S increased 1RM strength, thigh muscle cross-sectional area, and squat jump performance (p < 0.05), and the relative improvements in S were greater than in S + E (p < 0.05). S increased peak RFD while S + E did not, and this improvement was greater than in S + E (p < 0.05). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first controlled study to demonstrate that the strength training response on muscle hypertrophy, 1RM strength, squat jump performance, and peak RFD is attenuated in well-trained endurance athletes during a period of concurrent endurance training.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2011 · Arbeitsphysiologie
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Success in baseball batting is fundamental to the sport, however it remains one of, if not the most, challenging skills in sports to master. Batters utilize the kinetic chain to transfer energy from the lower body to the upper body to the bat, hoping to impart the maximum amount of energy into the ball. Scientists and coaches have researched the swing and developed theories on the keys for successful batting, but most of this research has been inadequate in attempting to fully describe the biomechanics of batting. The purposes of this study were to improve upon the methodology of previous researchers, provide a full biomechanical description of the swing, and compare swings against pitches thrown to different locations and at different speeds. AA-level Minor League Baseball players (n=43) took extended rounds of batting practice in an indoor laboratory against a pitcher throwing a mixture of fastballs and changeups. An eight camera motion analysis system and two force plates recording at 300 Hz captured the biomechanical data. The swing was divided into six phases (stance, stride, coiling, swing initiation, swing acceleration, and follow-through) by five key events (lead foot off, lead foot down, weight shift commitment, maximum front foot vertical ground reaction force, and bat-ball contact). Twenty-eight kinematic measurements and six ground reaction force measurements were computed based on the marker and force plate data, and all were assessed throughout the phases. First, a comprehensive description of a composite of the batters’ swings against fastballs “down the middle” was provided. Second, successful swings against fastballs thrown to one of five pitch locations (HIGH IN, HIGH OUT, LOW IN, LOW OUT, MIDDLE) were compared in terms of selected kinematics at the instant of bat-ball contact, timing and magnitude of peak kinematic velocities, and timing and magnitude of peak ground reaction forces. Third, these variables were once again compared for swings against fastballs and changeups. A large number of biomechanical differences were seen among the swings against various pitch locations. More fully rotated positions, particularly of the pelvis and bat were critical to the batters’ successes on inside pitches while less rotated positions keyed successes against outside pitches. The trail and lead arms worked together as part of a closed chain to drive the hand path. Successful swings had the trail elbow extended more for HIGH IN and flexed more for LOW OUT, though batters often struggled to execute this movement properly. A distinct pattern among successful swings against fastballs, successful swings against changeups, and unsuccessful swings against changeups was witnessed; namely a progressive delay in which the batter prematurely initiated the events of the kinetic chain, especially when unsuccessful in hitting a changeup. It was believed that this study was much more effective in capturing the essence of baseball batting than previous scientific works. Some recommendations to batting coaches would be to get batters to take a consistent approach in the early phases of every swing (particularly for the lower body), identify both pitch type and location as early as possible, use the rotation of the pelvis to propagate the energy transfer of the kinetic chain from the group to the upper body, and use the pelvis, and subsequently, the upper body, to orient the trunk and hands to an optimal position to drive the ball to the desired field. Limitations of the current study and ideas for future work were also presented to better interpret the findings of this research and further connect science and sport.
    Preview · Article ·
  • Source

    Full-text · Dataset ·
Show more