When we started exploring arm care we found ourselves asking what muscles in the shoulder played the biggest role in the throwing motion. We realized if we want to build an arm care protocol then we must first know what musculature needs the most attention. 

For this we initially dove into the research and started looking at EMG studies. 

An electromyography (EMG) measures the electrical activity in muscles during movement. Muscles can both lengthen and contract. In EMG studies it is important to note that we are talking about measuring activation (both the lengthening and or the contracting) of the muscle. To our surprise we realized there was a plethora of data from the last 30 years on shoulder activation during the throwing motion. To explain our findings from prior research we will break down the throwing motion into 4 phases as this is how most research papers investigate and translate the movement of throwing. During these phases we have compiled an average of activation from research that we represent by percentage to showcase the level of activation of each muscle during the specifically intended time in the throwing motion.  

 

 

Phase 1- Early Cocking Phase

The Early Cocking Phase is the time that exists between peak leg kick (PK) and front foot plant (FP). 

Key Active Shoulder Muscles-

• Deltoid (42%)
• Trap (48%)
• Supraspinatus (60%)
• Infraspinatus (30%)
• Teres Minor (23%)
• Subscapularis (31%)
• Lat (11%)
• Pectoralis Major (33%)
• Serratus Anterior (42%)

According to research on EMG analysis the supraspinatus shows high activity in the first 20 degrees of the arms motion during the initial aspects of the early cocking phase. As the arm passes 30 degrees of abduction the serratus anterior shows peak activation as it aids the scapula in upward rotation. The deltoid and trap then work to bring the arm up to 90 degrees. The role of the deltoid is to hold the shoulder at 90 degrees and aid in abduction during the completion of the early cocking phase. 

 

 

Phase 2- Late Cocking Phase

The Late Cocking Phase is the time that exists between foot plant (FP) and max external rotation (MER). 

Key Active Shoulder Muscles-

• Deltoid (22%)
• Trap (42%)
• Supraspinatus (49%)
• Infraspinatus (74%)
• Teres Minor (71%)
• Subscapularis (80%)
• Lat (109%)
• Pectoralis Major (72%)
• Serratus Anterior (72%)

The trap and serratus anterior showed high activation in the late cocking phase due to their role in helping with upward rotation. The supraspinatus, infraspinatus and teres minor begin to fire late in this phase. (7)

These muscles continued to fire then decreased in activation when the subscapularis begins to fire. This allows for deceleration of the shoulders external rotation. (5)

When the arm reaches full external rotation the lat and pectoralis major become most active due to the external rotation and horizontal abduction (5). 

 

 

Phase 3- Acceleration Phase

The Acceleration Phase is the time that exists between max external rotation (MER) and ball release (BR).

Key Active Shoulder Muscles-

• Deltoid (43%)
• Trap (72%)
• Supraspinatus (51%)
• Infraspinatus (31%)
• Teres Minor (54%)
• Subscapularis (85%)
• Lat (111%)
• Pectoralis Major (54%)
• Serratus Anterior (112%)

The Serratus Anterior’s role is to keep the scapula stable ultimately allowing for a firm base to which the rest of the shoulders musculature can set up and prepare for the deceleration phase. During this time the lat moves from a fully lengthened state to a shortened state thus peaking it's activation. Sometimes coaches or players mistake the musculature of the shoulder as being the key contributor in the acceleration of the arm during this phase. The shoulders musculature does not accelerate the arm. The arm is accelerated as a byproduct to the rotational acceleration of the trunk. The shoulders musculature during this time acts to stabilize the glenohumeral joint. In doing so the shoulders musculature ultimately protects the shoulder through the acceleration of the throwing motion. It is important to note this part of the throwing motion is often regarded as being one of the fastest motions the human body is capable of producing. (5)

 

 

Phase 4- Deceleration Phase

The Deceleration Phase is the time that exists between ball release (BR) and the completion of the throwing motion. 

Key Active Shoulder Muscles-

• Deltoid (55%)
• Trap (55%)
• Supraspinatus (49%)
• Infraspinatus (37%)
• Teres Minor (84%)
• Subscapularis (50%)
• Lat (59%)
• Pectoralis Major (29%)
• Serratus Anterior (42%)

Oftentimes we glamorize specific musculature in the deceleration of the throwing motion. The reality is that the deceleration phase showed levels of activation from all of these aforementioned muscles due to the muscles working to keep the humeral head in a stable position. In other words the body is fighting to literally keep the arm on the axial skeleton. Its funny to think about but it's true! If the body didn't have muscles to stabilize the arm it would literally just fly off with each and every throw.  (5)

Wrapping up all 4 phases we now have a completed throwing phase understanding and a set list of the shoulders musculature that is predominant during the throwing motion. 

Arm care as we know it shouldn’t simply address the musculature of the arm though. If we want to address injury and we aim to create a better arm care model, then we need to look at the impacts of fatigue. Next we will address how fatigue plays a role in injury. 

 

Transparency: 

Before we move forward we do want to take a second and recognize the limitations of EMG. Though we have come to a conclusion on the musculature involved in the throwing motion it is important to note we did not take EMG studies simply at face value. 

EMG is a piece of the puzzle that simply shows activation of the muscle. We recognize there are more influences on individual musculature and we need to acknowledge the role of independent muscles during the individual movement. 

 

By actual definition Fatigue is “the exercise- induced reduction in the ability of the muscle to produce force or power, whether or not the task can be sustained.

In other words failure to maintain force output leads to reduced performance due to our muscles inability to contract at normal rates. 

Beyond just reduction in performance though fatigue has been shown in research to be a leading cause in injury.

 

The equation is pretty simple. When load is greater than capacity we see tissue damage occur that can lead to injury. 

 

What is “load” you might ask? 

Load = The amount of force you place on a specific structure (ligaments, tendons, bone.. etc).

What is “capacity” you might ask?

Capacity = The structure's ability to withstand the load placed upon it.

 

Arm care, as we have known it, was designed as an attempt to reduce injury risk. However prior models fail to address objectively both load and capacity. 

The daily requirement of the thrower can wreak havoc on the musculature needed to protect the body. Athletes who have not built capacity both in throwing and in strength run the risk of injury when, as stated, load surpasses capacity. 

The daily requirement of the thrower can wreak havoc on the musculature needed to protect the body. Athletes who have not built capacity both in throwing and in strength run the risk of injury when load surpasses capacity. Click To Tweet

It seems simple in concept but with the turbulent schedule that a thrower faces in season it becomes difficult to maintain this practice. Additionally, subjective measures do not offer much help in mitigating fatigue as a players feelings vs his actual load do not align.

 It is important we address arm care both objectively and dynamically. It takes a monitoring system (technology) to offer daily insights that can help an athlete mitigate fatigue and measure progress.

In order for us to change arm care in the industry we have to formulate a new process to objectively manage both capacity and load. 

In the next 2 sections we will detail how we built a testing protocol to address measuring and determining the capacity of an athlete daily. 

To finish the education module we will detail how we built a dynamic training model to manage load daily.

 

Ok let's open this up and shoot some shots here. To be clear we aren't aiming at any one company in particular here. We are aiming at all of them…

All band protocols that do not assess the shoulder leave massive margins for user error and system error. When prescribing arm care without any sort of assessment process we greatly miss the proper load, set, rep scheme and tempo necessary for an athlete to develop. 

Seems logical right? Plain and simple, we need an assessment process of some sort. The question most ask isn’t “should we assess?”. The questions are can we test accurately, can we test in real world scenarios, and what do these tests actually provide us? 

Ask literally anyone in the game of baseball. No one would tell you assessing the shoulder would be a bad thing.

For years PT’s have been testing shoulders. They whip out a dynamometer and predicate an entire few months rehab process off data from a single assessment. 

Other programs today all around the game are starting to lean into trying to utilize a dynamometer to measure “readiness” or “strength”. The problem is testing protocols with a dynamometer are either being made too simple in order to implement them into daily routines or they are far too elaborate and happen at best once a week. 

So basically if we had to break down the state of the industry at the moment it would look like this…

1. You have a band program with no assessment process and some sort of exercise list you put on the fence for universalized arm care.
2. Assessment process that happens once a week or every few months and you get what seems to be arm care (some companies are seemingly basing/ building entire training programs off this data, not just arm care?)
3. Assessment process that happens daily but the data is stored as readiness and no arm care is given. (this is a lot of pro teams currently.)

So you are probably asking “what makes your process better!?”. Well let's start with one of the first prerequisites we had for designing a testing protocol. Our first prerequisite was our assessment protocol had to be usable at the field. 

This meant no laying down, it had to be quick enough to get completed in under 5 minutes and the product had to be small enough/ cost effective enough that we could get one in the backpack of every player. 

To meet this criteria we then began to consider both the technology we would use and the tests we would do with that technology.

As stated earlier in this unit we dove through 30 years of EMG data around the throwing motion. In this we knew what musculature we wanted to address and how we felt it was important to address it. Where we found EMG data surrounding the throwing motion we also compiled nearly 30 years of EMG data around dynamometer research coupled with EMG analysis. Majority of these tests were performed with the athlete laying down and in a training room setting. We began to ask ourselves if we wanted to redesign these exercises could we do it? To be clear our vision wasnt to reinvent the wheel around what the industry has tested for. Our goals were to make the testing protocols more applicable for daily use.

In building a testing protocol we needed to account for the list of muscles we desired to target in each test, the safety of each test, the daily repeatability of each test and lastly the technology positioning in each test. To determine how to target our desired muscle locations we needed to evaluate the positioning of each test to assure peak force production was produced by the intended muscles. From research we compiled within the industry, below are the 9 tests we chose to select and the MVIC associated with each muscle by study...

 

Test #1: D1 Pattern 

Pectoralis Major 75.8% MVIC 

Study  10 (Decker MJ, et al.)

 

Musculature Accounted For-

This test is designed to assess the pectoralis major. The pectoralis major is the main muscle in use during horizontal adduction and one of the main internal rotators of the shoulder.

Safety of Testing-

The D1 pattern by definition is as follows...

-The arm moves diagonally starting from just above 90 degrees.

-The arm is slightly externally rotated and working to the opposite hip.

-During this movement the arm internally rotates. 

The activation from this pattern is due to the test creating a more direct line of pull with the muscle fibers. The starting position puts the pec into a fully lengthened position at the initiation of this test. When the muscle becomes fully lengthened it is most susceptible to injury.   

We decided due to this risk factor to bring the arm down to the same side hip. This brought the position of the pectoralis major to a shortened position. This position will allow the athlete to produce max force with the least likelihood of injury. This also allows for us to assess the same musculature consistently yielding a desired result. 

Daily Repeatability and Technology Positioning-

Where many would have an athlete lay down on a table or on the ground for this test we recognized in real time this substantially burdens our ability to capture data daily. Athlete buy-in and applicable positioning of the technology for us became a limitation when testing our approaches. For this this reason we selected the D1 positioning seen in our test list for a more simplified approach that would yield similar results. 

---

 

Test #2: Horizontal Abduction 100

Supraspinatus 82% +-37 Supraspinatus 82%

Middle Deltoid 82% +-32 Middle Delt 82%

Posterior Delt 88% +-33 Posterior Delt 88%

Study 8  (Escamilla RF, et al.)

Study 10 (Reinold, M. M, et al.)

 

Musculature Accounted For-

This test is used to assess the supraspinatus in its ability to stabilize. When the arm is abducted above the shoulder joint the supraspinatus is heavily called upon to stabilize the glenohumeral joint. This allows the deltoid to produce force. The weaker the supraspinatus is in its ability to stabilize the lower the force output we see from the deltoid. 

Safety of Testing-

When we look at horizontal abduction we need to pay attention to the length of the external rotator cuff muscles. Mainly due to their smaller size we need to look at the infraspinatus and teres minor. When the shoulder is abducted to 90 degrees, these muscles are shortened. Due to the muscles being shortened the likelihood of injury decreases. If the athlete were to start in more of a horizontally adducted position it would lengthen the muscles therefore placing these smaller muscles at higher risk for injury. 

Daily Repeatability and Technology Positioning- 

When testing the supraspinatus most would measure its strength in the first 30 degrees of abduction. This would assess the action and function of the supraspinatus in abduction at this degree of movement. Once the shoulder is abducted past 90 degrees the function of the supraspinatus changes. It becomes a stabilizer from the glenohumeral head to the scapula. We are testing the function of the supraspinatus not its action.  To ensure safety in repeatability we had athletes maintain their testing shoulder in abduction only. Additionally we recognized that being in a split stance will allow for a larger base of support that ultimately allows for maximum force production.

 

---

 

Test 3: Horizontal 90 Palm Down

Middle Trap 87+- 20% MVIC    

Middle Trap 69+-18% MVIC

Study 8 (Escamilla RF, et al.)                

Study 15 (Ekstrom, R. A., et al.)

 

Musculature Accounted For-

This test is done to assess the middle trap. When the shoulder is abducted to 90 degrees and internally rotated we see that the line of pull is with the middle trap muscle fiber. Internal rotation will also help reduce contribution of the rear deltoid by rolling the muscle more anteriorly and in a less direct line of pull. 

Safety of Testing-

When we look at horizontal abduction we need to pay attention to the length of the external rotator cuff muscles. Mainly due to their smaller size we need to look at the infraspinatus and teres minor. When the shoulder is abducted to 90 degrees, these muscles are shortened. Due to the muscles being shortened the likelihood of injury decreases. If the athlete was to start in more of a horizontally adducted position it would lengthen the muscles therefore placing these smaller muscles at higher risk for injury. 

Daily Repeatability and Technology Positioning- 

When assessing the middle trap most would have an athlete lay down on a table with their shoulder off the table. They would have an athlete adjust so that their shoulder is abducted to 90 degrees. The athlete would then move through horizontal abduction. With our testing unit we replicated this but via a standing position. 

To ensure safety we had athletes maintain their testing shoulder in abduction only. Additionally we recognized that being in a split stance will allow for a larger base of support that ultimately allows for maximum force production through this test. 

---

 

Test 4: Horizontal Thumb Up

Posterior Delt 92+-49% MVIC 

Supraspinatus  > 50%MVIC

Study 8  (Escamilla RF, et al.) 

 

Musculature Accounted For-

This test is to assess the strength of the posterior delt. With shoulders abducted to 90 and externally rotated this will allow for a best line of pull of the posterior deltoid muscle fibers. This position allows for full strength of the posterior deltoid due to supraspinatus is not as heavily asked to stabilize the shoulder. 

Safety of Testing-

When we look at horizontal abduction looking at the length of the small external rotators mainly the infraspinatus and teres minor must be looked at. When the shoulder is abducted to 90 these muscles are in a shortened position which will decrease the likelihood of injury the most. If we were to start in more of a horizontal adduction position it would put these smaller muscles at risk for injury. 

Daily Repeatability and Technology Positioning-

When testing the posterior delt many would do so with the shoulder flexed to 90 and the shoulder also in an internally rotated position. This position would put the posterior delt in the most lengthened position. Testing in this position would place the posterior delt at its highest risk of injury. We decided to keep the shoulder in abduction to 90 degrees to bring the posterior delt into a more shorted position.To ensure safety we had athletes maintain their testing shoulder in abduction only. Additionally we recognized that being in a split stance will allow for a larger base of support that ultimately allows for maximum force production through this test. 

---

 

Test 5: Y Thumb Back

Middle Trap 101+-32% MVIC

Low Trap 95+-11% MVIC              

Lower Trap 97+-16% MVIC

Lower Trap 97+-16% MVIC

Study 15 (Ekstrom, R. A., et al.)               

Study 16 (Ekstrom, R. A., et al.)

Study 8  (Escamilla RF, et al.)

Musculature Accounted For-

This test is to assess the lower trap. The most activation of the lower trap is done with the shoulder abducted to 135 degrees and externally rotated. The lower trap muscle fiber orientation will be in the most direct line of pull of the until compared to the middle trap.The contribution of the middle trap activation happens due to the horizontal abduction movement pattern of the shoulder. 

Safety of Testing-

When we look at horizontal abduction looking at the length of the small external rotators mainly the infraspinatus and teres minor must be looked at. When the shoulder is abducted to 90 these muscles are in a shortened position which will decrease the likelihood of injury the most. If we were to start in more of a horizontal adduction position it would put these smaller muscles at risk for injury. 

Daily Repeatability and Technology Positioning- 

When assessing the lower trap most would have an athlete lay face first on a table with their shoulder off the table. The athlete would adjust to the shoulder being abducted to 135 degrees and they would horizontally abduct their shoulder. With our testing unit we replicated this position via a standing position. Additionally we recognized that being in a split stance will allow for a larger base of support that ultimately allows for maximum force production through this test. 

---

 

Test 6: Side Internal

Subscapularis 75+-47% MVIC Ratio of ER/IR Chance of Injury          

Subscapularis 72.6+-19.9% MVIC

Study 8  (Escamilla RF, et al.) Study 9 (Byram IR, et al.)                        

Study 13 (Jenp YN, et al.)

 

Musculature Accounted For-

This test assesses the strength of subscapularis in internal rotation.  With the shoulder position at 0 degrees of abduction it will force the subscapularis as a main internal rotator. This position will reduce the contribution of pectoralis major and latissimus dorsi. When the shoulder is abducted to 90 degrees the pectoralis major and latissimus dorsi moment arm are both increased which will increase their force producing capability. 

Safety of Testing-

When looking at internal rotation we decided on this position to pull the least amount of stress on the UCL and pectoralis major. With this position we can produce max internal rotation with the least amount of stress. Having the shoulder abducted and elbow flexed to 90 degrees the amount of stress on the UCL will be very high. 

Daily Repeatability and Technology Positioning- 

While most would assess the subscapularis by having an athlete lay down on their side we recognized the importance of having the athlete stand. In this position the athlete maintains flexion of the elbow to 90. This simplicity limits the error of position allowing for most repeatable results. 

Additional Information-

Byram I.R., et al conducted a longitudinal study assessing preseason shoulder strength levels of professional players for 5 years. They found that the ratio of internal and external rotation had a high correlation to injury. This is one of the reasons we included this test.

---

 

Test 7: Side External

Infraspinatus  62+-13% of MVIC Infraspinatus 62% MVI

Infraspinatus 84+-18.3% MVIC

Teres Minor 67+-37% MVIC Teres Minor 67% MVIC

Teres Minor 80.5+-13.1% MVIC

Supraspinatus 51+-47% MVIC Supraspinatus 68% MVIC

Supraspinatus 80.7+-19.1% MVIC

Study 8  (Escamilla RF, et al.)

Study 10 (Reinold, M. M, et al.)

Study 13 (Jenp YN, et al.)

Ratio of ER/IR Chance of Injury

Study 9 (Byram IR, et al.)

 

Musculature Accounted For-

This test is to assess external rotators of the shoulder mainly infraspinatus and teres minor with contribution of the supraspinatus. With the shoulder 0 abduction provides these muscles to be the main force produced instead of stabilizers of the shoulder when they are away from the body. 

Safety of Testing-

This position of the shoulder allows for the most stable position of the shoulder which will in turn be the safest. 

Daily Repeatability and Technology Positioning- 

While most would assess the infraspinatus and teres minor by having an athlete lay down on their side we recognized the importance of having the athlete stand. In this position the athlete maintains flexion of the elbow to 90. This simplicity limits the error of position allowing for most repeatable results. 

Additional Information-

Byram I.R., et al conducted a longitudinal study assessing preseason shoulder strength levels of professional players for 5 years. They found that the ratio of internal and external rotation had a high correlation to injury. This is one of the reasons we included this test.

---

 

Test 8: Extension 

Study 8  (Escamilla RF, et al.)

Latissimus Dorsi 64+-53% MVIC x

Study 12 (KRONBERG, MARGARETA, et al.)

Result= Most Lat Activation is at 60% of Extension

Study  14  (Park, S. Y., & Yoo, W. G.)

Highest with lat activation at 90 degrees  at 72.44+-28.13 

 

Musculature Accounted For-

This test is to assess the lat. The lat is the man extensor of the shoulder and one of the shoulders internal rotators. The lat in research showed that the most activation was do at 45 degrees of flexion. Yet when we look at the muscle tension relationship we see the strongest the lat can be is at about 60% of extension or 110 degrees of flexion. Flexing the shoulder to 45 degrees and flexing the torso increases the length of the lat which will get close to the most ideal length tension relationship.

Safety of Testing-

When deciding on this test we know that a fully lengthened lat is when the shoulder is flexed at 180 and externally rotated. We decided to position the lat in a semi lengthened position to allow for max force to be produced with the least likelihood of injury. Keeping the shoulder in an internal rotated position will keep the insertion of the lat at the shoulder in a safe position. 

Daily Repeatability and Technology Positioning- 

When assessing the lat most would have an athlete lay on their stomach with the shoulder at 0 degrees of flexion. The athlete would then move into extension. This position puts the lat in its shortest position. We decided to have the athlete stand, flex the torso and shoulder to increase the total length of the lat to its mid range. This lengthening will increase the moment arm which will allow for a more accurate strength measurement of the lat. Additionally we recognized that being in a split stance will allow for a larger base of support that ultimately allows for maximum force production through this test. 

---

 

Test 9: Flexion

Study 8  (Escamilla RF, et al.)

Serratus Anterior 96+-24% MVIC 

Middle Delt: 73+- 16% MVIC 

Anterior Delt: 69+-24% MVIC 

Study 15(Ekstrom, R. A., et al.)

Serratus Anterior 91+-16% MVIC 

 

Musculature Accounted For-

This test is to assess the serratus anterior ability to stabilize the scapular to allow for the anterior and middle delt to produce force. The serratus anterior is most active when the shoulder is flexed to 120 degrees of flexion. 

Safety of Testing-

This position is the only position being flexion of the shoulder keeps the shoulder in a safe position to produce force from. 

Daily Repeatability and Technology Positioning- 

When testing the serratus anterior most would have the athlete flex the shoulder to 90 and internally rotate the shoulder 90 degrees. The practitioner would then push back against the elbow to see a deficit in strength in the serratus anterior which could also cause a well known movement of the scapula called “scapular winging”. In our testing process we choose to have the athlete stand and flex the shoulder to 120 degrees. This would assess the athletes serreatus in its function to stabilize the scap and genrolhumral head. This would also allow for max force to be applied from the middle and anterior delt. Putting the TISO unit at 1 foot from the ground allows for a more direct line of flexion that will activate the serratus anterior.

---

 

Now that we understand how our TISO Tests are conducted we can begin to discuss how we have been able to utilize them to determine readiness daily for our athletes. In our next section we will cover specifically how we derived our readiness score. 

“Your feelings don’t matter”. 

Deep breath… We know this might be a controversial topic but it's one we have studied. 

Subjective readiness is just a terrible concept in organized sport. Again… deep breath. Let's consider this idea of subjective readiness for a moment. 

When asking a player how they feel oftentimes the response is purely dictated on an individual athlete's physical toughness, mental approach to toughness, desire to train and influence of environment. 

At the end of the day we have to realize we are dealing with competitive individuals who desire the opportunity to compete. If any one of these individuals realize their subjective readiness score is being used to limit opportunity you will forever lose the integrity of the data collected. 

Think about it… How many times have you observed a coach ask a kid “how are you feeling?” and the response is “I feel good”. 

We have all done it as athletes. We have said “good” to not allow our coach to be concerned about our potential performance even though we felt “bad”. 

Even if you could get an honest answer from an athlete the question still stands, what is “good”? On a 1 - 10 scale is “good” a 7 or above? What if an athlete is a 6.5 on this scale.. Do you alter their entire program over .5 based on this subjective scale? 

Even if you could get an honest answer from an athlete the question still stands, what is “good”? On a 1 - 10 scale is “good” a 7 or above? What if an athlete is a 6.5 on this scale.. Do you alter their entire program over .5 based on… Click To Tweet

The point is subjective questionnaires are too messy. When we didn’t have technology as we do today they made some sense. With technological advances though its time we left this subjective measure concept in the past. 

Speaking of technological advances I guess this is a good time to segway back to why you are here in the first place. Let's talk about how we objectively measure readiness of the throwing shoulder daily for our athletes. 

TISO Testing is what we named our 9 test process. The TISO Score is our patent pending readiness score that allows for us to determine the readiness of a player's shoulder daily. 

We calculate the TISO Score by taking the sum of all 9 TISO Tests. We then normalize the score to your age and body type. 

Beyond just daily readiness, the way we structured our calculation for the TISO Score allows us the ability to evaluate any individual player against a larger population for determination of both present age rank and change over any duration of time. 

Ok lets pause for a second…

If you take nothing else away from this course, here is the key point and the biggest difference between the KP Bands system and other band systems on the market. 

 

KP Bands are meant to be utilized daily. 

 

Just as subjectively measuring guys leaves massive gaps for error so does only assessing once a month, week.. Etc. YOU NEED TO ASSESS DAILY!!! Let's explore why…

 

On this graph you have 2 lines. One represents 6 weeks of testing on Monday and one represents 6 weeks of testing on Wednesday. 

In this athletes case his routine was to TISO Test before any activity daily. He would then train. 

On Monday’s he was at his highest readiness to train and would take on a very high training load. The impacts of this high load can be seen on our Wednesday dataset. 48 hours later (Wednesday) after this athletes high training load we would see a low readiness from his TISO Testing before his training day. 

So the question to ask is what if we test once a week, month, season?

The problem we face is variation of daily athlete load. 

What we are really talking about here is the impact of daily training load on an athletes individual recovery cycle. Selective assessing only gives us a limited understanding on the individual athlete. 

Selective assessing only gives us a limited understanding on the individual athlete. Click To Tweet

Lets explain this by example...

Using the graph above if we used assessment information taken only on Wednesday we would write programming that would undershoot an athletes actual training load. This athletes scores on Monday indicate that he is capable of handling a higher training load. If we are writing programs only based on this athletes Wednesday assessments we would slow this athletes potential progression and potentially under train the athlete. It is important to note that under training an athlete can be grounds for elevated injury risk. 

Same can be said if we look at the assessment information taken only on Monday. If writing a program based on this information we would overshoot an athletes actual training load for the duration of the week. This athletes scores Wednesday indicate he is not capable of handling the high load that Mondays scores indicate. If we are writing a program based on solely Mondays scores we would potentially over train the athlete. It is important to note that over training an athlete can be grounds for elevated injury risk. 

So the key here is we do not want to over train the athlete and we do not want to under train the athlete. As stated, failure to do either places the athlete in potential injury risk. Seems simple but the question is how do we do it?

The answer comes in 2 parts...

1.  As stated we have to assess daily. Assessing daily allows us to account for fluctuation in athlete readiness as we know athlete load varies day to day, week to week and month to month.

2. When building our KP Bands system we recognized the ability to individualize daily assessment and training was key in us changing the overall outcome of how our athletes did "arm care". We called the process of individualizing daily programming a "Dynamic Training Protocol" (DTP). The DTP accounts for athlete readiness daily and offers specifically prescribed load to assure proper progression as well as long term development for the individual athlete. 

In our next section we will talk more on the DTP and how it functions in its daily selection of training to assure proper load. 

 

Programs are stagnant. There is no true measure of progression. 

When you look at the idea of arm care most consider the output. They identify the feeling of "working hard" and relate it to future health. Many also glamorize new shiny gadgets or cling to exercises that seem a little out of the box. We tell ourselves that the "advanced" sciences behind this new toy or movement make it more applicable than age old progression and strength modalities. Most aren't ready to have the conversation that the best recovery tool is a properly designed progression in programming.

Most aren't ready to have the conversation that the best recovery tool is a properly designed progression in programming. Click To Tweet

The problem is when we don't quantify change over time in our athletes it becomes impossible to define how much is too much daily training load. We think that masking the feeling of fatigue with new tech means we can push harder. We think that we have to do exercises we can load more to assure we feel like we are doing more. We are told "do 1 more rep" like over shooting an established goal is a good thing. Simply put the community today values sensation over stimulation. 

The game needs a dynamic training protocol (DTP). It's time we began to look at arm care differently. It's time that we began to assign day load predicated on your objective readiness. Lets explore how DTP works by first explaining how it selects daily programming...

The DTP system starts by comparing your readiness today to your age range. Combining our total TISO Score and our individual 9 TISO tests we rank each individual athlete within their age range. Through our advanced filtering systems we categorize you in tiers and select the best program for you. Sounds complicated... it sort of is but don't worry our software (Kinnect) completes this process in seconds. 

Once the DTP system knows where to look for the right program it then has to select the right variables. Under our database we consider in rank the variables of...

• Exercise Selection

When considering exercise selection we took into account a number of variables. The first variable was how complex the movement was. Simply stated we selected simple exercises for younger athletes and more complex exercises for older athletes to ensure higher success rates of proper movement. Within age ranges as well we scaled exercise selection depending on the ranking of the athlete against their population. Again we needed younger or weaker athletes to execute less complex exercises with higher success rates to ensure proper stimulus of the shoulder. This filtering system assures when our DTP system selects an exercise for you daily that it is the most individualized and appropriate exercise for you today. 

• Volume (Set, Rep, Tempo, Tension)

While exercise selection is the movement desired, volume defines the actual stimulus on the body. When discussing day load volume selection is key to assuring athletes avoid the injury risk associated with fatigue. Let's break down the different types of volume we account for within our program...

Set- the number of reps you do in a row

Reps- the number of actions to complete any individual exercise

Tempo- the duration to complete a single rep

Tension- the amount of load recommended for the individual exercise 

When addressing volume dynamically the DTP system selects the proper volume for you daily based on the same ranking structure explained in our exercise selection process. Ultimately, as stated before, this filtering system assures when our DTP system selects volume for you daily that it is the most individualized and appropriate volume for you today. 

To close we want to note that many in the strength and conditioning world know similar processes of managing fatigue to be "auto regulatory". Auto Regulation by definition is the adjustments to training variables based off of the individuals fluctuations in performance. 

Research has identified auto regulatory processes to be "more effective in improving strength and strength endurance gains compared to linear periodization". 

Adhering to the concepts of Auto Regulation through our DTP system we have found strong correlations in athlete progression of strength over time. Tracking athlete strength over time through our TISO Score has proven in conjunction with our DTP system to be the games most advanced band system. There has not been a bigger break through in "arm care". With the release of KP Bands the idea of "arm care" has been officially changed forever. 

Don't forget to check out our shop where you can purchase your own KP Bands.

For team or organization purchases contact us via email... Support@KineticProBaseball.com

 

Referenced Research Page

1. Fares MY, Fares J, Baydoun H, Fares Y. Prevalence and patterns of shoulder injuries in Major League Baseball. Phys Sportsmed. 2020 Feb;48(1):63-67. doi: 10.1080/00913847.2019.1629705. Epub 2019 Jun 17. PMID: 31173695.
2. Seroyer, S. T., Nho, S. J., Bach, B. R., Jr, Bush-Joseph, C. A., Nicholson, G. P., & Romeo, A. A. (2009). Shoulder pain in the overhead throwing athlete. Sports health, 1(2), 108–120. 
3. Lauersen, J. B., Andersen, T. E., & Andersen, L. B. (2018). Strength training as superior, dose-dependent and safe prevention of acute and overuse sports injuries: a systematic review, qualitative analysis and meta-analysis. British journal of sports medicine, 52(24), 1557-1563.
4. Jobe, F. W., Moynes, D. R., Tibone, J. E., & Perry, J. (1984). An EMG analysis of the shoulder in pitching: a second report. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 12(3), 218-220.
5. Jobe, F. W., Tibone, J. E., Perry, J., & Moynes, D. (1983). An EMG analysis of the shoulder in throwing and pitching: a preliminary report. The American journal of sports medicine, 11(1), 3-5.
6. DiGiovine, N. M., Jobe, F. W., Pink, M., & Perry, J. (1992). An electromyographic analysis of the upper extremity in pitching. Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery, 1(1), 15-25.
7. Escamilla RF, Yamashiro K, Paulos L, Andrews JR. Shoulder muscle activity and function in common shoulder rehabilitation exercises. Sports Med. 2009;39(8):663-85. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200939080-00004. PMID: 19769415.
8. Byram IR, Bushnell BD, Dugger K, Charron K, Harrell FE Jr, Noonan TJ. Preseason shoulder strength measurements in professional baseball pitchers: identifying players at risk for injury. Am J Sports Med. 2010 Jul;38(7):1375-82. doi: 10.1177/0363546509360404. Epub 2010 May 20. PMID: 20489215.
9. Reinold, M. M., Wilk, K. E., Fleisig, G. S., Zheng, N., Barrentine, S. W., Chmielewski, T., ... & Andrews, J. R. (2004). Electromyographic analysis of the rotator cuff and deltoid musculature during common shoulder external rotation exercises. Journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy, 34(7), 385-394.
10. Decker MJ, Tokish JM, Ellis HB, Torry MR, Hawkins RJ. Subscapularis muscle activity during selected rehabilitation exercises. Am J Sports Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;31(1):126-34. doi: 10.1177/03635465030310010601. PMID: 12531769.
11. KRONBERG, MARGARETA*; NÉMETH, GUNNAR*,**; BROSTRÖM, LARS-AKE* Muscle Activity and Coordination in the Normal Shoulder: An Electromyographic Study, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research: August 1990 - Volume 257 - Issue - p 76-85 
12. Jenp YN, Malanga GA, Growney ES, An KN. Activation of the rotator cuff in generating isometric shoulder rotation torque. Am J Sports Med. 1996 Jul-Aug;24(4):477-85. doi: 10.1177/036354659602400412. PMID: 8827307.
13. Park, S. Y., & Yoo, W. G. (2013). Selective activation of the latissimus dorsi and the inferior fibers of trapezius at various shoulder angles during isometric pull-down exertion. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 23(6), 1350-1355.
14. Ekstrom, R. A., Soderberg, G. L., & Donatelli, R. A. (2005). Normalization procedures using maximum voluntary isometric contractions for the serratus anterior and trapezius muscles during surface EMG analysis. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 15(4), 418-428.
15. Ekstrom, R. A., Donatelli, R. A., & Soderberg, G. L. (2003). Surface electromyographic analysis of exercises for the trapezius and serratus anterior muscles. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 33(5), 247-258.
16. Mann, J. B., Thyfault, J. P., Ivey, P. A., & Sayers, S. P. (2010). The effect of autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise vs. linear periodization on strength improvement in college athletes. The Journal of strength & conditioning research, 24(7), 1718-1723.
17. Dorrell, H. F., Smith, M. F., & Gee, T. I. (2020). Comparison of velocity-based and traditional percentage-based loading methods on maximal strength and power adaptations. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 34(1), 46-53.
18. Jovanović, M., & Flanagan, E. P. (2014). Researched applications of velocity based strength training. J Aust Strength Cond, 22(2), 58-69.