
==== Front
Int J Sports Phys Ther
Int J Sports Phys Ther
2159
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
2159-2896
NASMI Website: International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy

116858
10.26603/001c.116858
Letter to the Editor
Author Response - Letter to the Editor Concerning: “An Interval Throwing Program for Baseball Pitchers Based upon Workload Data”
Reinold Michael M DPT
Dowling Brittany MS
Fleisig Glenn S. PhD
Macrina Leonard C. DPT
Wilk Kevin E. DPT
Streepy John T.
Andrews James R. MD
2 5 2024
2024
19 5 653656
© The Author(s)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (4.0) which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
==== Body
pmcWe have received the letter to the editor by Wong, Evans, and Meister and appreciate the authors’ interest in our manuscript “An Interval Throwing Program for Baseball Pitchers Based upon Workload Data.” Thank you for the opportunity to respond. In their letter, Wong et al. made several statements that we find are not supported by science and may be misleading to the reader. The letter states that Reinold et al.1 “utilized an unvalidated inertial measurement unit (IMU) device” because “multiple scientific studies”2–4 have “clearly demonstrated that this particular IMU device is not valid for accurately measuring elbow arm stress.” The letter points out that elbow torque magnitudes from the IMU sensor reported by Reinold et al.1 are significantly less than torque magnitudes reported by “gold standard” motion capture systems. In summary, they state elbow torque magnitudes are different when measured with IMU than when measured with camera-based motion capture, and therefore IMU data are wrong.

We agree that elbow throwing torque magnitudes reported in Reinold et al.1 and nearly two dozen other peer-reviewed studies2,3,5–21 using the IMU are consistently less than elbow torque magnitudes reported by camera-based motion capture studies. However, we challenge the letter’s implication that differences between the two technologies show that motion capture data are correct and IMU data are incorrect. The technologies are different and utilize different capture rates as well as models to build kinematics and kinetics, so naturally there will be variation in values measured. This also happens when comparing camera-based motion capture studies from different labs all the time, as well as between marker-based and markerless motion capture systems.22 It is important for the reader to understand that elbow torque magnitudes are different when comparing between methods, however produce similar patterns that are reliable.

Of the three “scientific studies” cited in the letter, one was simply a letter and not a peer-reviewed study.4 The two actual peer-reviewed validity studies showed significant differences (“inaccuracy”) between the IMU and motion capture but conclude that data were consistent within the IMU (“reliable”).2,3 Wong et al, in their letter, incorrectly stated that the Camp et al paper found the “IMU reliably produces untrustworthy numbers within the same subject”. While in fact, Camp et al specifically stated “intrathrower reliability was not formally assessed.”3 Furthermore, both validation studies showed that elbow torque from IMU correlated with elbow torque from motion capture. Motion capture may be viewed as the “gold standard” in throwing biomechanics because it has been used in published studies for decades (including many times by us), but the newer IMU technology also produces reliable data that can be used to develop interval throwing programs.

The biomechanical model developed in Dowling et al.5 and used in Reinold et al.1 calculates workload based upon within-subject changes in elbow torque for different types of throws. Because IMU and motion capture data are correlated, the chronic workload graphs for the interval throwing programs presented in these studies would likely be remarkably similar to what is shown even if motion capture data had been used; simply, the magnitude of chronic workload would be on a different scale. Acute:chronic workload ratios likely would not change.

The authors of the letter explained difficulties they had in the past with their past experience using the IMU, which may be the basis for their biased feelings that any research using data from this IMU is inaccurate and invalid. We acknowledge that they had difficulty with this IMU and respect their decision to continue their rehabilitation protocols without using biomechanical data. However, their implication that data in the current study were unreliable because no one was monitoring the throwing with the IMU is absolutely incorrect. One of our researchers (B. Dowling) was in charge of the original data collection and was part of a team that, in fact, did stand with players during throwing activities to monitor the throwing and tag the distance for every throw made. During this collection, researchers instructed players to check and ensure their sleeve did not move throughout each throwing session. Properly fitted sleeves did not move and this was not a substantial issue with each throwing session. In retrospect, we acknowledge it may have been helpful for us to include these details in the methods of our papers.

Another point of consideration is that intensity is only part of the equation of workload modeling, along with volume and frequency. While there are other methods of measuring intensity in addition to torque, such as distance, perceived effort, and velocity measured by radar as the letter authors mention, until these methods are studied it is our recommendation to utilize torque. Regardless, considering the program (and all other interval throwing programs) uses partial effort throws to build up volume on flat ground, intensity is likely not the most significant factor in workload modeling when compared to volume and frequency.

When formulating the interval throwing program in our paper1 and Dowling’s previous paper,5 what we actually found was that past programs did a generally acceptable job of progressing workload. But by strategically manipulating the volume and frequency, we were able to formulate a more optimized progression that we feel will be much better tolerated by the patient and help them return to sport safer and more effectively. This is the novel approach that we feel makes our throwing program optimal.

It is our belief that any interval throwing program should utilize the most current evidence in regard to biomechanics and workload monitoring. While there may be multiple ways to quantify intensity, using an interval throwing program that does not consider workload is shortsighted. As explained in our study and furthermore in this response, the updated interval throwing program presented in Reinold et al.1 is based upon reliable biomechanical data and workload management to safely and efficiently rehabilitate pitchers back to pitching after shoulder and elbow injuries.

Michael M. Reinold, DPT; Brittany Dowling, MS; Glenn S. Fleisig, PhD; Leonard C. Macrina, DPT; Kevin E. Wilk, DPT; John T. Streepy; James R. Andrews, MD
==== Refs
An Interval Throwing Program for Baseball Pitchers Based upon Workload Data Int J Sports Phys Ther Reinold Michael M. Dowling Brittany Fleisig Glenn S. Macrina Leonard C. Wilk Kevin E. Streepy John T. Andrews James R. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy 1 3 2024
19 3 326 336 2159-2896 10.26603/001c.94146 10.26603/001c.94146 38439773
Exploring wearable sensors as an alternative to marker-based motion capture in the pitching delivery PeerJ Boddy Kyle J. Marsh Joseph A. Caravan Alex Lindley Kyle E. Scheffey John O. O’Connell Michael E. PeerJ 24 1 2019
7 1 e6365 2167-8359 10.7717/peerj.6365 10.7717/peerj.6365 30697497
Are Wearable Sensors Valid and Reliable for Studying the Baseball Pitching Motion? An Independent Comparison With Marker-Based Motion Capture The American Journal of Sports Medicine Camp Christopher L. Loushin Stacy Nezlek Stuart Fiegen Anthony P. Christoffer Dan Kaufman Kenton SAGE Publications 2 8 2021
49 11 3094 3101 0363-5465 10.1177/03635465211029017 10.1177/03635465211029017
Comments on, "The relationship of throwing arm mechanics and elbow varus torque: within-subject variation for professional baseball pitchers across 82,000 throws" American Journal of Sports Medicine Driggers A.R. Bingham G.E. Bailey C.A.
Workload Comparison of Contemporary Interval Throwing Programs and a Novel Optimized Program for Baseball Pitchers Int J Sports Phys Ther Dowling Brittany Brusalis Christopher M Streepy John T Hodakowski Alexander Pauley Patrick J Heidloff Dave Garrigues Grant E Verma Nikhil N Fleisig Glenn S International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy 1 2 2024
19 2 176 188 2159-2896 10.26603/001c.92016 10.26603/001c.92016 38313666
Effect of a 6-week weighted baseball throwing program on pitch velocity, pitching arm biomechanics, passive range of motion, and injury rates Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach Reinold Michael M. Macrina Leonard C. Fleisig Glenn S. Aune Kyle Andrews James R. SAGE Publications 8 6 2018
10 4 327 333 1941-7381 10.1177/1941738118779909 10.1177/1941738118779909 29882722
Effect of fatigue on medial elbow torque in baseball pitchers: A simulated game analysis The American Journal of Sports Medicine Okoroha Kelechi R. Meldau Jason E. Lizzio Vincent A. Meta Fabien Stephens Jeffrey P. Moutzouros Vasilious Makhni Eric C. SAGE Publications 28 6 2018
46 10 2509 2513 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546518782451 10.1177/0363546518782451
Assessment of Elbow Torque during the Pitching Motion: which has higher torque, the fastball or curveball? Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery Makhni E.C. Lizzio V.A. Meta F. Stephens J.P. Okoroha K.R. Moutzouros V.
Changes in Throwing Arm Mechanics at Increased Throwing Distances During Structured Long-Toss The American Journal of Sports Medicine Dowling Brittany McNally Michael P. Laughlin Walter A. Onate James A. SAGE Publications 14 9 2018
46 12 3002 3006 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546518795892 10.1177/0363546518795892
Baseball Pitchers’ Perceived Effort Does Not Match Actual Measured Effort During a Structured Long-Toss Throwing Program The American Journal of Sports Medicine Melugin Heath P. Larson Dirk R. Fleisig Glenn S. Conte Stan Fealy Stephen A. Dines Joshua S. D’Angelo John Camp Christopher L. SAGE Publications 31 5 2019
47 8 1949 1954 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546519850560 10.1177/0363546519850560
Importance of radar gun inclusion during return-to-throwing rehabilitation following ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction in baseball pitchers: a simulation study Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Lizzio Vincent A. Smith D. Grace Jildeh Toufic R. Gulledge Caleb M. Swantek Alexander J. Stephens Jeffrey P. Schulz Brian M. Makhni Eric C. Elsevier BV 3 2020
29 3 587 592 1058-2746 10.1016/j.jse.2019.08.014 10.1016/j.jse.2019.08.014 31859036
The Relationship of Throwing Arm Mechanics and Elbow Varus Torque: Within-Subject Variation for Professional Baseball Pitchers Across 82,000 Throws The American Journal of Sports Medicine Camp Christopher L. Tubbs Travis G. Fleisig Glenn S. Dines Joshua S. Dines David M. Altchek David W. Dowling Brittany SAGE Publications 14 8 2017
45 13 3030 3035 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546517719047 10.1177/0363546517719047
Variability in Baseball Throwing Metrics During a Structured Long-Toss Program: Does One Size Fit All or Should Programs Be Individualized? Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach Leafblad Nels D. Larson Dirk R. Fleisig Glenn S. Conte Stan Fealy Stephen A. Dines Joshua S. D’Angelo John Camp Christopher L. SAGE Publications 3 9 2019
11 6 535 542 1941-7381 10.1177/1941738119869945 10.1177/1941738119869945 31478791
Interval Throwing Programs at Distances Beyond 150 Feet Can Be Equivalent to Pitching Over Five Innings Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery Carr James B., II Manzi Joseph E. Estrada Jennifer Dowling Brittany McElheny Kathryn L. Dines Joshua S. Elsevier BV 9 2022
38 9 2638 2646 0749-8063 10.1016/j.arthro.2022.05.006 10.1016/j.arthro.2022.05.006 35660517
Predictors of elbow torque among professional baseball pitchers Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Lizzio Vincent A. Gulledge Caleb M. Smith D. Grace Meldau Jason E. Borowsky Peter A. Moutzouros Vasilios Makhni Eric C. Elsevier BV 2 2020
29 2 316 320 1058-2746 10.1016/j.jse.2019.07.037 10.1016/j.jse.2019.07.037
Predictors of Elbow Torque Among Youth and Adolescent Baseball Pitchers The American Journal of Sports Medicine Okoroha Kelechi R. Lizzio Vincent A. Meta Fabien Ahmad Christopher S. Moutzouros Vasilios Makhni Eric C. SAGE Publications 10 5 2018
46 9 2148 2153 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546518770619 10.1177/0363546518770619
Collegiate baseball pitchers demonstrate a relationship between ball velocity and elbow varus torque, both within and across pitchers Sports Biomechanics Sakurai M. Barrack A. J. Lobb N. J. Wee C. P. Diaz P. R. Michener L. A. Karduna A. R. Informa UK Limited 2023
1476-3141 10.1080/14763141.2023.2205380 10.1080/14763141.2023.2205380
Biomechanical Basis of Interval Throwing Programs for Baseball Pitchers: A Systematic Review Int J Sports Phys Ther Dias Travis Lerch Benjamin G. Slowik Jonathan S. Wilk Kevin E. Andrews James R. Cain E. Lyle Fleisig Glenn S. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy 2 10 2023
18 5 1036 1053 2159-2896 10.26603/001c.87811 10.26603/001c.87811 37795321
Effects of Mound Versus Flat-Ground Pitching and Distance on Arm Mechanics and Elbow Torque in High School Pitchers Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Dowling Brittany McElheny Kathryn D. Camp Christopher L. Ling Daphne I. Dines Joshua S. SAGE Publications 1 12 2020
8 12 2325-9671 10.1177/2325967120969245 10.1177/2325967120969245 33354584
Relationship between workload and throwing injury in varsity baseball players Physical Therapy in Sport Mehta Sameer Elsevier BV 11 2019
40 66 70 1466-853X 10.1016/j.ptsp.2019.08.001 10.1016/j.ptsp.2019.08.001
The Relationship Between Maximum Shoulder Horizontal Abduction and Adduction on Peak Shoulder Kinetics in Professional Pitchers Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach Manzi Joseph E. Dowling Brittany Trauger Nicolas Hansen Benjamin R. Quan Theodore Dennis Elizabeth Fu Michael C. Dines Joshua S. SAGE Publications 2023
15 4 592 598 1941-7381 10.1177/19417381221104038 10.1177/19417381221104038 35762130
Comparison of marker-less and marker-based motion capture for baseball pitching kinematics Sports Biomechanics Fleisig Glenn S. Slowik Jonathan S. Wassom Derek Yanagita Yuki Bishop Jasper Diffendaffer Alek Informa UK Limited 19 5 2022
1 10 1476-3141 10.1080/14763141.2022.2076608 10.1080/14763141.2022.2076608
