©Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2015) 14, 246-255

http://www.jssm.org

Research article

Difference between Adolescent and Collegiate Baseball Pitchers in the Kinemat-

ics and Kinetics of the Lower Limbs and Trunk during Pitching Motion

Masahiro Kageyama 1, Takashi Sugiyama 1, Hiroaki Kanehisa 2 and Akira Maeda 2

1
Graduate School of Physical Education, National Institute of Fitness and Sports in Kanoya, Kagoshima, Japan
2
National Institute of Fitness and Sports in Kanoya, Kagoshima, Japan

and kinetic parameters differ among these age groups. As

a reason for the observed differences, they suggested the
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to clarify the differences between
age-related difference in muscle strength capability.
adolescent and collegiate baseball pitchers in the kinematic and However, it should be noted that the prior study focused
kinetic profiles of the trunk and lower limbs during the pitching on the motions of the upper limbs and trunk, although
motion. The subjects were thirty-two adolescent baseball pitch- knee flexion angles in front foot contact and ball release
ers aged 12-15 years (APG) and thirty collegiate baseball pitch- were determined. To our knowledge, no studies have
ers aged 18-22 years (CPG). Three-dimensional motion analysis examined how kinematics and kinetics of the lower limbs
with a comprehensive lower-extremity model was used to eval- during pitching motion differ between adolescent and
uate kinematic and kinetic parameters during baseball pitching. collegiate pitchers.
The ground reaction forces (GRFs) of the pivot and stride legs Pitching motion is a high-demand athletic skill in-
during pitching were determined using two multicomponent
force plates. The joint torques of hip, knee, and ankle were
volving fine coordination of all body segments (Atwater,
calculated by the inverse-dynamics computation of musculo- 1979), and the mechanics of the lower limbs are recog-
skeletal human models using motion-capture data. To eliminate nized as an integral part of the pitching motion (Elliott et
any effect of variation in body size, kinetic and GRFs data were al., 1988; Kageyama et al., 2014; Mac Williams et al.,
normalized by dividing them by body mass. The velocity of a 1998; Matsuo et al., 2001; Milewski et al., 2012; Robb et
pitched ball was significantly higher (p < 0.01) in CPG (35.2 ± al., 2010). The contributions of the lower extremities to
1.9 m∙s-1) than in the APG (30.7 ± 2.7 m∙s-1). Most kinematic baseball pitchers and their motions have been described as
parameters for the lower limbs were similar between the CPG the open kinetic chain (Kreighbaum and Barthels, 1985),
and the APG. Maximum Fy (toward the throwing direction) on in which all body segments are required to move the up-
the pivot leg and Fy and resultant forces on the stride leg at ball
release were significantly greater in the CPG than in the APG (p
per-extremity joints into appropriate positions to mini-
< 0.05). Hip and knee joint torques on the lower limbs were mize the loads on each segment and transmit the generat-
significantly greater in the CPG than in the APG (p < 0.05). The ed force from the legs to more distal segments (Kibler,
present study indicates that the kinematics of lower limbs during 1995). The lower extremities and trunk provide the be-
baseball pitching are similar between adolescent and collegiate ginning of the open kinetic chain that ends with force
pitchers, but the momentum of the lower limbs during pitching transmission to the baseball at the time of its release (El-
is lower in adolescent pitchers than in collegiate ones, even liott et al., 1988; Mac Williams et al., 1998; Matsuo et al.,
when the difference in body mass is considered. 2001). Thus, the lower limbs have been considered to be
important for constructing a stable base in which arm
Key words: Pitching ball velocity, the open kinetic chain, joint
moment, ground-reaction force, motion analysis.
motion can be more efficiently and safely generated along
with providing rotational momentum (Burkhart et al.,
2003; Kibler, 1991).
Introduction The contribution of lower limbs for producing high
pitched ball velocity has been examined by measuring
In baseball, the velocity of the pitched ball is one of the kinetic and kinematic parameters. Elliott et al. (1988)
most important factors for the outcomes of games. At have suggested that the ability to drive the body over a
present, many conditioning programs such as pitching, stabilized stride leg is a feature of high-ball-velocity
long-distance running, sprint running, and resistance pitchers. Mac Williams et al. (1998) reported that the
training are adopted to improve the pitched ball velocity. maximum ground-reaction forces (GRFs) values in the
These training programs are applied to not only collegiate pitching direction were 0.35 and 0.72 per body weight for
players but also adolescent ones, in spite of large differ- the pivot and stride legs, respectively, and wrist velocity
ences between these two populations in terms of body at the time of ball release was related to both these varia-
size, strength capability, and training experience. In addi- bles. In addition, Kageyama et al. (2014) indicated that
tion, kinetic profiles in pitching motion differ considera- collegiate high-ball-velocity pitchers could generate
bly between adolescent and collegiate players. From the greater momentum by hip and knee joints in pivot and
findings of Fleisig et al. (1999), while nearly all of the stride leg. These findings indicate that greater momentum
kinematic and temporal parameters during pitching are of lower limbs during pitching plays an important role to
quite similar between young players aged 10 to 15 years throw ball with high velocity. However, less information
and either high school or collegiate players, ball velocity on how the kinematics and kinetic on lower limbs during

Received: 25 August 2014 / Accepted: 06 January 2015 / Published (online): 01 June 2015
Kageyama et al. 247

pitching motion differs between adolescent collegiate pitches 10 times at maximal effort with an interval of
baseball pitchers is available from previous studies. To about 15 seconds between the trials. In the present study,
clarify this may provide useful information on training the kinematic and kinetic data in the fastest pitch passing
and technical guidance for adolescent baseball pitchers. the strike zone were used for detailed analysis.
The purpose of this study was to clarify the differ-
ences between adolescent and collegiate baseball pitchers Data collection
in the kinematic and kinetic profiles of lower limbs as The GRFs were collected with two multicomponent force
well as trunk during the pitching motion. plates (Z15907, 60 × 120 cm, Kistler Corporation, Win-
terthur, Switzerland) attached to the rigid steel frame of a
Methods custom-built pitching mound. To simulate the sloped
geometry of a regulation pitching mound in official base-
Subjects
ball rules, the inclination angle of the portable pitching
Thirty-two adolescent baseball pitchers aged 12-15 years
mound was set at 4.8°. The GRFs of the pivot and stride
(APG; right-handed, n = 29; left-handed, n = 3) and thirty
legs during pitching was measured using two multicom-
collegiate baseball pitchers aged 18-22 years (CPG; right-
ponent force plates, each of which had a sampling rate of
handed, n = 25; left-handed, n = 5) voluntarily participat-
2000 Hz. One force plate was set below the rubber to
ed in this study. Descriptive data on the physical charac-
record push-off forces during the windup and initial por-
teristics of the subjects are shown in Table 1. This study
tions of delivery, and a second force plate recorded the
was approved by the Ethics Committee of the National
landing force.
Institute of Fitness and Sports in Kanoya and was con-
Thirty-six reflective markers aligned to specific
sistent with their requirements for human experimenta-
body landmarks (Figure 1) were attached directly onto the
tion. Prior to the measurements, all subjects and the par-
skin to minimize movement artifacts. Three-dimensional
ents of the adolescents were fully informed of the purpose
coordinates were measured using a motion analysis sys-
as well as the procedures of this study and possible risks
tem (Eagle System, Motion Analysis Corporation, Santa
of the measurements, and gave their written informed
Rosa, CA) with 12 Eagle cameras with a sampling rate of
consent.
500 Hz and a shutter speed of 2000 Hz. The root-mean-
Experimental design square error in the calculation of the three-dimensional
The participants threw a baseball from a portable pitching marker location was found to be less than 1.0 mm. The
mound towards a strike zone marked on a home plate. three-dimensional coordinates and the GRFs were syn-
The force plate was attached to the rigid steel frame of the chronized using software (Cortex 1.1.4.368, Motion
portable pitching mound. The distance between the porta- Analysis Corporation, Santa Rosa, CA) and then calculat-
ble pitching mound and the home plate was the same as ed. Marker position data were filtered using a fourth-order
the official pitching distance (18.44 m). Ball velocity was Butterworth low-pass filter with a cut-off frequency of
measured using a radar gun (2ZM-1035, Mizuno Corpora- 13.4 Hz (Fleisig et al., 1999). The GRFs and three-
tion, Osaka, Japan) positioned behind the strike zone and dimensional coordinates were defined as follows: Y-axis,
adjusted to the position of the ball release. Prior to the throwing direction; Z-axis, vertical axis; X-axis, third-
pitching trials, participants performed warm-up exercises base direction, perpendicular to the Y- and Z-axes. The
including stretching. After the completion of the warm-up X-axis was reversed between right- and left-handers; the
exercises, the subjects were asked to perform only fastball first-base direction for the left hander was defined as “+”.

Figure 1. Placement of reflective markers on the body segment.

248 Adolescent and collegiate pitching mechanics

Figure 2. Definitions of kinematic variables. (A) Hip adduction/abduction, (B) hip (internal/external rotation),
(C) hip (flexion/extension), (D) ankle (dorsiflexion/plantar flexion), (E) upper torso, pelvis angles and trunk
twist, (F) forward trunk tilt and knee (flexion/extension).

The ball velocity was measured using a radar gun. negative when they were “closed” (their posterior aspect
With a radar gun, the ball velocity may be lower than that visible to the batter) (Stodden et al., 2001; Ishida and
gained with a marker on the ball. Therefore, we examined Hirano, 2004; Figure 2E). Transverse plane rotation of the
the difference in the velocity between the one got with a pelvis and upper torso orientation were measured with
radar gun and the one gained with a marker using motion respect to the Y-axis (home plate). The pelvis and upper
analysis system. As a result, the ball velocity gained with torso angle were at 90° of transverse rotation when they
a radar gun had a significant correlation (r = 0.982, p < were square to the home plate. When the right and left
0.01, n = 21) with that gained with a marker. In addition, anterior superior iliac spines were parallel to the home
there were no significant differences between the two plate, the pelvic rotation equaled 90°. Trunk twist angle
methods (Radar gun: 32.6 ± 1.1 m∙s-1 vs. Marker on ball: was defined as the difference between the pelvis and the
32.8 ± 1.3 m∙s-1). Thus, we adopted the measurement of upper torso angles (Ishida and Hirano, 2004; Figure 2E).
the ball velocity by a radar gun in this study. Forward trunk tilt was the angle between the superior
direction of the trunk and global Y (in the throwing direc-
Data analysis tion) in the global YZ plane (Figure 2F). Forward trunk
Kinematic and kinetic parameters were calculated with tilt was therefore 90° when the trunk was horizontal to-
software (nMotion musculous 1.51, Motion Analysis ward the target and 0° when the trunk was vertical
Corporation, Santa Rosa, CA), utilizing the inverse- (Fleisig et al., 1996; Matsuo et al., 2001; Stodden et al.,
dynamics computation of musculoskeletal human models 2001). For each displacement measurement, the corre-
using motion-capture data (Nakamura et al., 2005). Kin- sponding velocity was calculated using the 5-point central
ematic parameters were calculated using the same meth- difference method (Miller and Nelson, 1973). The joint
ods as previously described elsewhere (Fleisig et al., torque was calculated at the hip, knee, and ankle using
1996; Ishida and Hirano, 2004; Milewski et al., 2012; kinematic data, and inverse dynamics equations (Naka-
Stodden et al., 2001). The joint angles in the lower ex- mura et al., 2005). To eliminate any effects of variation in
tremities were calculated using Euler equations of motion. body size, kinetic and GRFs data were normalized as
Hip motion (coronal, sagittal, and transverse planes) and divided by body weight. The pitching kinematics for left-
knee motion (sagittal plane) were calculated for both handed subjects were calculated using the same conven-
pivot and stride legs using standard angle definitions tions; however, it was necessary to mirror the world Z-
(Milewski et al., 2012; Figure 2 A-D, F). Stride length axis so that all movements could be calculated, analyzed,
was measured and defined as the distance between the and described from a right-hand point of view.
ankle joint centers at foot contact, expressed as a percent- To simplify interpretation of the results, throwing
age of the subject's height. Pelvis orientation was defined motion was divided it into six phases as previously de-
as the angle between a line connecting the two anterior fined for baseball pitching: windup, stride, arm cocking,
superior iliac spine markers and the Y-axis in the XY arm acceleration, arm deceleration, and follow-through
plane (Stodden et al., 2001; Figure 2E). The upper torso (Fleisig et al., 1996; 1999; Stodden et al., 2001). Howev-
orientation was defined as the angle between a line con- er, to simplify the phase of pitching motion, this study
necting the shoulder markers and the Y-axis in the XY divided it into two phases (Figure 3) as previously de-
plane (Stodden et al., 2001; Figure 2E). The pelvis and scribed (Kageyama et al., 2014). The position during
upper torso orientation angle was positive when they were pitching define the points in time when the knee of
“open” (i.e., their anterior aspect visible to the batter) and the stride leg reached maximal height (MKH), the anterior
Kageyama et al. 249

Figure 3. Phases of pitching motion. MKH; Maximal stride knee height. MAP; Maximal anterior
push-off force. SFC; Stride foot contacts ground. MER; Maximum shoulder external rotation. REL; Ball re-
lease. Values measured from MHL until a particular event, expressed in time (s) or percentage of phase 1
(where 0% corresponds to the instant of maximal height of the knee of the stride leg and 100% corresponds
to the instant of stride foot contact) and phase 2 (where 100% corresponds to the instant of stride foot con-
tact and 200% corresponds to the instant of ball release).

(Y: toward the throwing direction) push-off force on the cance level was set at p < 0.05. All data were analyzed
pivot leg reached a maximal value (MAP), the stride foot using SPSS Statistics 19 software (IBM Corporation,
made contact with the ground (SFC), the shoulder joint Chicago, IL).
reached maximal external rotation (MER), and the ball
was released (REL). Ground contact was defined by the Results
resultant force of the stride leg that was greater than 50 N.
Data was analyzed from two phases in the present study. Table 1 shows the physical characteristics and ball veloci-
These two phases were defined as from MKH to SFC ty between the APG and the CPG. The physical character-
(phase 1), and from SFC to REL (phase 2). The GRFs on istics and the pitched ball velocity were significantly
the pivot leg was mainly measured in the phase 1, where- greater in the CPG than in the APG (p < 0.01).
as that on the stride leg was measured in the phase 2. The
GRFs on the pivot leg was measured after SFC but its Kinematic parameters
magnitude was small. Therefore, the GRFs on the pivot Table 2 shows descriptive data on lower-limb kinematic
leg in the phase 2 was not analyzed. The GRFs on the parameters between the APG and the CPG. Pivot and
stride leg was not measured because the stride foot was in stride hip abduction angles at MAP and maximum hip
the air until SFC. Temporal data were calculated, with the abduction and extension angular velocities were signifi-
time of MKH defined as 0%, the time of SFC defined as cantly lower in the CPG than in the APG (p < 0.05).
100%, and the time of REL defined as 200%. The angles Stride length (absolute value) and pivot and stride hip
of the trunk and lower legs were measured at five instanc- external rotation angles at MKH, pivot external rotation
es: MKH, MAP, SFC, MER, and REL. angle at MAP, pivot flexion angle at MAP, stride hip
flexion angle at MKH and REL, stride knee flexion angle
Statistical analysis at SFC, pivot ankle dorsiflexion angle at SFC, stride ankle
Descriptive data are presented as means ± SD. A two-way dorsiflexion angle at MKH, maximum hip flexion angle
repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) (group in pivot and stride legs and maximum hip internal rotation
×time) was used to test the effects of group and time and angular velocity were significantly greater in the CPG
their interaction on the kinematics and kinetic parameters. than in the APG (p < 0.05).
When a significant interaction was found, an unpaired Table 3 shows a comparison between the APG and
Student’s t-test with a Bonferroni correction was used to the CPG in terms of trunk kinematic parameters. Pelvis,
test the difference in the measured variables between the negative trunk twist and trunk tilt angles at MAP and
APG and the CPG. In addition, the effect size (Cohen’s d) maximum trunk tilt angular velocity were significantly
was calculated to express the magnitude of the difference lower in the CPG than in the APG (p < 0.05). Maximum
between the two means. The threshold level values were upper torso angular velocity and upper torso and pelvis
< 0.20 (trivial), 0.20 – 0.49 (small), 0.50 – 0.79 (medi- angular velocities at MER were significantly greater in
um), and ≧ 0.80 (large) (Faul et al., 2007). The signify- the CPG than in the APG (p < 0.05).

Table 1. Physical characteristics and ball velocity difference between adolescent and collegiate
pitchers. Values are expressed as mean (±SD).
Adolescent pitcher Collegiate pitcher
ES
(n = 32) (n = 30)
Age (yr) 13.9 (.6) 19.6 (.9)* 7.44
Height (m) 1.64 (.08) 1.77 (.05)* 2.02
Weight (kg) 54.1 (10.5) 72.7 (.9)* 1.85
Ball velocity (m∙s-1) 30.7 (2.7) 35.2 (1.9)* 1.96
ES; effect size value. * p < 0.01, Significant difference between adolescent and collegiate pitchers
250 Adolescent and collegiate pitching mechanics

Table 2. Lower-limb kinematic parameter difference between adolescent and collegiate pitchers. Values are expressed as
mean (±SD).
Adolescent Collegiate Adolescent Collegiate
Variable ES ES
pitcher (n = 32) pitcher (n = 30) pitcher (n = 32) pitcher (n = 30)
Phase time / Strength length
Phase 1 time (s) .9 (.2) .9 (.3) .03
Phase 2 time (s) .2 (.0) .2 (.0) .27
Total Pitch Time (s) 1.1 (.2) 1.1 (.3) .01
Stride length (m) 1.4 (.1) 1.5 (.1)** 1.33
Stride length (%height) 82.9 (6.1) 84.6 (4.2) .33
Angles Pivot leg Stride leg
Hip Coronal Plane ( Adduction:+; Abduction:- )
Angle at MKH (°) -23.1 (5.8) -24.6 (5.9) .26 20.9 (14.9) 24.1 (12.8) .23
Angle at MAP (°) -25.9 (9.8) -19.7 (9.8)* .62 -31.7 (13.5) -21.0 (13.2)** .78
Angle at SFC (°) -42.5 (4.5) -42.1 (5.4) .08 -38.5 (6.8) -38.1 (6.0) .06
Angle at MER (°) 27.7 (18.8) 26.2 (21.7) .08
Angle at REL (°) 33.9 (16.7) 37.1 (14.0) .20
Hip Transverse Plane (Internal Rotation:+; External Rotation:- )
Angle at MKH (°) -18.3 (7.1) -23.8 (6.0)** .83 -32.7 (10.3) -39.9 (11.6) * .64
Angle at MAP (°) -25.1 (6.5) -31.0 (8.2)** .79 -39.3 (9.5) -38.3 (8.2) .11
Angle at SFC (°) -21.9 (8.8) -25.5 (8.2) .41 -45.4 (8.3) -48.5 (8.6) .37
Angle at MER (°) -22.0 (12.2) -23.7 (9.3) .15
Angle at REL (°) -18.3 (10.4) -16.1 (8.8) .22
Hip Sagittal Plane (Flexion:+; Extension:- )
Angle at MKH (°) 15.4 (7.7) 16.3 (6.2) .13 100.3 (10.3) 108.9 (6.8)** .96
Angle at MAP (°) 51.0 (10.0) 59.2 (8.7) ** .86 45.0 (13.1) 46.0 (14.1) .07
Angle at SFC (°) 20.5 (14.2) 23.5 (13.7) .21 58.1 (11.1) 61.9 (12.5) .31
Angle at MER (°) 105.4 (14.2) 109.4 (13.8) .28
Angle at REL (°) 97.9 (15.5) 106.2 (10.0)* .62
Knee Sagittal Plane (Flexion:+; Extension:- )
Angle at MKH (°) 16.0 (7.0) 17.0 (6.4) .14 111.1 (18.5) 112.0 (13.5) .05
Angle at MAP (°) 50.3 (9.2) 49.5 (9.4) .09 35.9 (17.9) 33.4 (15.0) .15
Angle at SFC (°) 30.8 (13.1) 28.1 (10.2) .22 40.0 (8.2) 46.8 (8.5)** .80
Angle at MER (°) 39.0 (12.1) 44.2 (10.9) .44
Angle at REL (°) 31.4 (15.6) 38.0 (13.7) .44
Ankle Sagittal Plane (Dorsiflexion:+; Plantar flexion:- )
Angle at MKH (°) 2.3 (5.3) 2.1 (6.9) .03 .6 (18.4) 11.6 (14.2)* .66
Angle at MAP (°) -5.9 (9.6) -1.4 (9.5) .46 6.8 (11.5) 10.8 (11.4) .35
Angle at SFC (°) 21.8 (17.8) 31.6 (10.3) * .66 13.3 (12.8) 16.6 (14.4) .24
Angle at MER (°) 19.2 (5.5) 19.7 (5.8) .08
Angle at REL (°) 20.9 (6.5) 21.4 (6.1) .08
Joint Angular Velocities Pivot leg Stride leg
Max Hip Flex Angle (°) 57.9 (9.3) 62.6 (8.1) * .52 106.4 (13.8) 112.5 (8.8)* .51
Max Knee Flex Angle (°) 58.6 (9.9) 56.7 (10.1) .19 47.8 (7.1) 51.7 (8.3) .49
Max Hip Add AV (°/s ) 117.9 (66.0) 140.7 (47.3) .39 852.0 (213.9) 830.6 (160.9) .11
Max Hip Abd AV (°/s ) 248.0 (73.7) 279.8 (78.4) .41 123.3 (137.9) 38.8 (116.4)* .65
Max Hip IntRot AV (°/s ) 110.8 (77.6) 171.0 (122.7) * .58 459.7 (13.8) 499.7 (157.3) .27
Max Hip ExtRot AV(°/s ) 72.0 (26.5) 69.1 (25.0) .11 82.4 (89.0) 59.0 (63.1) .30
Max Hip Flex AV (°/s ) 133.5 (41.5) 140.1 (40.1) .16 609.5 (98.8) 632.9 (107.0) .22
Max Hip Ext AV (°/s ) 515.6 (111.8) 549.1 (100.8) .30 262.7 (102.2) 204.2 (98.5)* .57
Max Knee Ext AV (°/s ) 239.0 (85.4) 230.0 (76.6) .11 245.7 (95.1) 220.9 (117.8) .23
Knee Ext AV at MER (°/s ) 167.9 (126.0) 132.1 (122.8) .28
Knee Ext AV at REL (°/s ) 199.4 (109.0) 161.1 (117.3) .33
ES; Effect Size value; MKH; Maximal stride knee height. MAP; Maximal anterior push-off force. SFC; Stride foot contacts ground.
MER; Maximum shoulder external rotation. REL; Ball release. AV: Angular Velocity; Max: Maximum; Flex: Flexion; Ext: Exten-
sion; Add: Adduction; Abd: Abduction; IntRot:Internal Rotation; ExtRot: External Rotation. * p < 0.05, Significant difference be-
tween adolescent and collegiate pitchers. ** p < 0.01, Significant difference between adolescent and collegiate pitchers.

Kinetic parameters the CPG in terms of the joint torques of the lower limbs.
Table 4 shows a comparison between the APG and the The joint torques of pivot hip abduction at MAP, stride
CPG in terms of GRFs. Fy on the pivot leg at MAP and hip adduction at SFC, stride hip abduction at REL, pivot
Fy and resultant forces on the stride leg at REL were hip internal rotation at MAP, stride hip external rotation at
significantly greater in the CPG than in the APG (p < SFC, pivot knee extension at MAP, and stride knee exten-
0.05). Fz and resultant forces on the pivot leg at MKH sion at MER and REL were significantly greater in the
were significantly lower in CPG than in APG (p < 0.05). CPG than in the APG (p < 0.05). Pivot hip extension
Table 5 shows a comparison between the APG and torque at MAP and SFC, pivot ankle dorsiflexion torque
Kageyama et al. 251

at SFC and stride ankle plantar flexion at MAP were sig- studies.
nificantly lower in the CPG than in the APG. Maximum Fy on the pivot leg was significantly
The maximum joint torques of hip abduction, hip greater in the CPG than in the APG (Table 4). Elliott et al.
internal rotation, hip flexion, and knee extension in pivot (1988) reported that the ability to drive the body over a
leg and hip adduction, hip external rotation, and knee stabilized stride leg is a feature of high-ball-velocity
extension in the stride leg were significantly greater in the pitchers. In addition, Mac Williams et al. (1998) indicated
CPG than in the APG (p < 0.05). Appearance of the max- that the maxima of GRFs (Fy, Fz, and resultant forces) on
imum stride hip abduction torque (APG: 185.4 ± 8.2% the pivot leg and Fz and Fy at MAP were highly correlat-
time vs. CPG: 194.4 ± 6.2% time) and stride hip flexion ed with wrist velocity at the time of ball release. On the
torque (APG: 104.6 ± 7.9% time vs. CPG: 101.0 ± 3.0% basis of these results, Mac Williams et al. (1998) suggest-
time) were significantly later in the CPG than in the APG ed that the landing leg serves as an anchor in transforming
(p < 0.05). the forward and vertical momentum into rotational com-
ponents; posteriorly directed forces at the landing foot
Discussion reflect an overall balance of the inertial forces of the body
moving forward to create ball velocity. Taking this into
The pitched ball velocities for CPG (36.0 ± 1.6 m∙s-1) and account, the greater maximum Fy on the pivot leg in col-
APG (31.0 ± 2.9 m∙s-1) are higher than those reported legiate baseball pitchers may be interpreted as that, com-
previously for university baseball pitchers (33-35 m/s, pared with adolescent pitchers, they can generate the
Felter and Dapena, 1986; Fleisig et al., 1999; Sakurai et inertial forces for moving the body forward before stride
al., 1993; Stodden et al., 2001) and adolescent baseball foot contact.
pitchers aged 10 to 15 years (26.3-28.0 m∙s-1; Dun et al., In the pivot leg, joint torques during hip abduction,
2008; Fleisig et al., 1999), respectively. Thus, in the com- hip internal rotation, hip flexion, and knee extension were
parison within similar age group, the CPG and APG had significantly greater in the CPG than in the APG (Table
greater pitching ability than those examined in previous 5). The study that focused on the joint torques of the

Table 3. Trunk kinematic parameter difference between adolescent and collegiate pitchers. Values are ex-
pressed as mean (±SD).
Adolescent pitcher Collegiate pitcher
Variable ES
(n = 32) (n = 30)
Angles
Upper Torso
Angle at MKH (°) -17.5 (51.6) -24.3 (16.9) .17
Angle at MAP (°) -35.3 (13.7) -32.9 (11.3) .18
Angle at SFC (°) -32.1 (13.8) -33.4 (9.5) .11
Angle at MER (°) 82.7 (12) 79.8 (23.7) .15
Angle at REL (°) 118.0 (8.2) 122.5 (9.9) .49
Pelvis
Angle at MKH (°) -36.4 (19.2) -34.4 (16.7) .11
Angle at MAP (°) -11.1 (12.7) -17.6 (11.5) * .53
Angle at SFC (°) 16.7 (10.4) 14.8 (9.7) .19
Angle at MER (°) 93.8 (8.8) 90.2 (14.7) .30
Angle at REL (°) 100.9 (8.0) 101.9 (7.3) .12
Trunk twist
Angle at MKH (°) 18.9 (58.8) 10.1 (11.5) .20
Angle at MAP (°) -24.2 (16.3) -15.3 (14.6) * .56
Angle at SFC (°) -48.8 (14.5) -48.2 (11.6) .04
Angle at MER (°) -11.1 (12.2) -10.4 (12.7) .06
Angle at REL (°) 17.1 (9.3) 20.6 (8.3) .39
Trunk tilt
Angle at MKH (°) -3.5 (6.2) -3.6 (4.7) .02
Angle at MAP (°) -9.3 (8.5) -15.7 (6.2) ** .83
Angle at SFC (°) -2.1 (6.6) -4.0 (4.8) .33
Angle at MER (°) 15.5 (6.1) 12.9 (7.8) .37
Angle at REL (°) 29.3 (7.6) 25.4 (7.6) .51
Angular Velocities
Maximum Upper Torso Angular Velocity (°/s ) 1170.2 (161.8) 1273.0 (141.9) ** .66
Maximum Pelvis Angular Velocity (°/s ) 727.4 (118.9) 714.0 (71.2) .13
Maximum Trunk Positive Twist Angular Velocity (°/s ) 821.7 (175.5) 871.2 (149.9) .30
Maximum Trunk Negative Twist Angular Velocity (°/s ) 359.0 (145.9) 397.2 (118.2) .28
Maximum Trunk Tilt Angular Velocity (°/s ) 381.3 (82.9) 339.6 (59.3) * .57
Upper Torso Angular velocity at MER (°/s) 1052.1 (188.1) 1172.5 (235.8) * .56
Pelvis Angular velocity at MER (°/s) 306.4 (129.6) 376.7 (119.2) * .55
ES; Effect Size value. MKH; Maximal stride knee height. MAP; Maximal anterior push-off force. SFC; Stride foot contacts ground.
MER; Maximum shoulder external rotation. REL; Ball release. * p < 0.05, Significant difference between adolescent and collegiate
pitchers. ** p < 0.01, Significant difference between adolescent and collegiate pitchers
252 Adolescent and collegiate pitching mechanics

Table 4. GRFs in pivot and stride leg difference between adolescent and collegiate pitchers. Values are expressed as mean
(±SD).
Adolescent Collegiate Adolescent Collegiate
Variable ES ES
pitcher (n = 32) pitcher (n = 30) pitcher (n = 32) pitcher (n = 30)
GRFs Force Fx Force Fz
Force on pivot leg at MKH (N/kg) -.2 (.3) -.3 (.3) .14 8.0 (1.5) 6.8 (1.8)** .69
Force on pivot leg at MAP (N/kg) -.3 (.7) -.3 (.7) .08 10.5 (1.9) 10.8 (2.4) .16
Force on stride leg at MER (N/kg) .6 (.9) .4 (1.0) .28 18.4 (1.8) 18.4 (1.7) .00
Force on stride leg at REL (N/kg) .9 (.7) 1.2 (.9) .39 16.6 (2.5) 17.7 (2.2) .47
Force Fy Resultant forces
Force on pivot leg at MKH (N/kg) .7 (.4) .8 (.5) .25 8.1 (1.5) 7.0 (1.7)** .69
Force on pivot leg at MAP (N/kg) 7.2 (1.3) 8.4 (1.7)** .74 12.8 (2.2) 13.8 (2.7) .40
Force on stride leg at MER (N/kg) -10.2 (1.6) -10.9 (1.7) .43 21.1 (2.1) 21.5 (2.1) .16
Force on stride leg at REL (N/kg) -7.9 (2.0) -9.3 (1.8)** .70 18.4 (3.0) 20.1 (2.6)* .57
Maxima and minima of GRFs Pivot leg Stride leg
Maximum Fx (N/kg) 1.4 (.6) 1.3 (.6) .18 1.2 1.4 (.7) .23
Maximum Fy (N/kg) 7.2 (1.3) 8.4 (1.7) ** .74
Maximum Fz (N/kg) 12.5 (1.7) 12.9 (2.1) .23 19.5 (2.0) 19.2 (1.7) .16
Maximum Resultant forces (N/kg) 14.0 (2.2) 14.9 (2.6) .37 22.2 (2.5) 22.2 (2.0) .03
Minimum Fx (N/kg) -.7 (.5) -.7 (.5) .06 -1.3 (.8) -1.1 (.7) .22
Minimum Fy (N/kg) -10.9 (1.8) -11.1 (1.7) .11
ES; Effect Size value. MKH; Maximal stride knee height. MAP; Maximal anterior push-off force. SFC; Stride foot contacts ground. MER; Maximum
shoulder external rotation. REL; Ball release. * p < 0.05, Significant difference between adolescent and collegiate pitchers. ** p < 0.01, Significant
difference between adolescent and collegiate pitchers

lower limbs during pitching motion is only a report of tion, hip external rotation, and knee extension were signif-
collegiate baseball pitchers by Kageyama et al. (2014). icantly greater in the CPG than in the APG (Table 5).
The current result indicates that the joint torques of the Knee extension torques on the stride leg at MER and REL
pivot leg during pitching motion in collegiate baseball were significantly greater in the CPG than in the APG
pitchers were similar to those reported in Kageyama et al. (Table 5). The current result indicates that as compared to
(2014). Kageyama et al. (2014) found that collegiate high- Kageyama et al. (2014), the joint torques of the stride leg
ball-velocity pitchers could generate greater momentum during pitching motion in collegiate baseball pitchers
by hip extension/abduction and knee extension in the were similar. Campbell et al. (2010) reported that the high
pivot leg for accelerating the body forward. Campbell et activation of the vastus medialis in the stride leg during
al. (2010) observed that the activities of the gastrocnemi- the phase 3 (from SFC to REL) indicates their important
us, vastus medialis, gluteus maximus, and biceps femoris roles in controlling/stabilizing knee joint positions,
of the pivot leg from stride knee peak flexion to stride whereas the upper extremities and torso forcefully rotate
foot contact, expressed as the values relative to their re- about the stride hip. Considering these finding, the current
spective maximal voluntary isometric contractions, were results support the findings of Kageyama et al. (2014) and
75, 68, 73, and 48%, respectively, which promoted con- the greater joint torque of the hip and knee for collegiate
centric plantar flexion, knee extension, and hip extension. baseball pitchers may be assumed to contribute for con-
Considering these findings, it may be assumed that the trolling and/or stabilizing their stride legs in the phase
observed differences between the adolescent and colle- from MER to REL.
giate pitchers in the hip and knee joint torques during Upper-torso and pelvis angular velocities were
pitching motion could to be attributed to those in the significantly greater in the CPG than in the APG (Table
muscular activities around the hip and knee and in the 3). Trunk rotation during pitching was shown to be an
ability for accelerating the body forward. important factor for pitchers throwing at high velocity
Fy and resultant forces on the stride leg at REL (Fleisig et al., 1999, Matsuo et al., 2001, Stodden et al.,
were significantly greater in the CPG than in the APG 2001). According to a report by Fleisig et al. (1999), col-
(Table 4). The energy of the lower limbs during pitching lege and professional baseball pitchers generally achieved
is transferred to the trunk and arms (Elliott et al., 1988; higher upper-torso velocities than adolescent pitchers. In
Kageyama et al., 2014; Mac Williams et al., 1998; Mat- addition, Stodden et al. (2001) suggested that an increase
suo et al., 2001; Milewski et al., 2012; Robb et al., 2010). in momentum transfer caused by increased pelvis and
Elliott et al. (1988) suggested that the ability to drive the upper-torso velocities would increase the force at the
body over a stabilized stride leg was a characteristic of shoulder and elbow, which is needed to accelerate the
high-ball-velocity pitchers. Mac Williams et al. (1998) throwing arm. The current results support the findings of
reported that the maxima of GRFs (Fy, Fz, and resultant Fleisig et al. (1999) and suggest that as compared to ado-
forces) on the stride leg and Fy, Fz, and resultant forces at lescent baseball pitchers, collegiate baseball pitchers can
REL correlated highly with wrist velocity at the time of generate the momentum of the lower limbs for increasing
ball release. Taking these findings into account together the energy of the trunk rotation and the arm.
with the current results, it is likely that collegiate baseball The present study provides evidence that the dif-
pitchers can generate the inertial forces from MER to ference in the pitched ball velocity between adolescent
REL, which cause the upper body to move forward. and collegiate baseball pitchers can be attributed to that
In the stride leg, joint torques during hip adduc- in the momentum of the lower limbs, rather than the
Kageyama et al. 253

Table 5. Lower-limb joint torque difference between adolescent and collegiate pitchers. Values are expressed as mean (±SD).
Adolescent Collegiate Adolescent Collegiate
Variable ES ES
pitcher (n = 32) pitcher (n = 30) pitcher (n = 32) pitcher (n = 30)
Joint torques Pivot leg Stride leg
Hip Coronal Plane ( Adduction:+; Abduction:- )
Joint torque at MKH (Nm/kg) -.5 (.3) -.4 (.3) .17 -.1 (.1) -.1 (.1) .02
Joint torque at MAP (Nm/kg) -1.1 (.6) -1.8 (.9)** .86 .2 (.3) .1 (.3) .27
Joint torque at SFC (Nm/kg) .7 (.8) -.4 (1.1) .35 .7 (.3) 1.0 (.4) ** 1.02
Joint torque at MER (Nm/kg) -1.7 (.5) -1.5 (.8) .22
Joint torque at REL (Nm/kg) -1.6 (.6) -1.9 (.4) .62
Hip Transverse Plane (Internal Rotation:+; External Rotation:- )
Joint torque at MKH (Nm/kg) -.1 (.1) -.0 (.1) .30 .0 (.1) .1 (.1) .21
Joint torque at MAP (Nm/kg) .3 (.3) .7 (.6)** .80 -.1 (.1) -.1 (.1) .07
Joint torque at SFC (Nm/kg) -.3 (.3) -.2 (.3) .31 -.2 (.1) -.4 (.2) ** 1.06
Joint torque at MER (Nm/kg) .5 (.3) .4 (.4) .27
Joint torque at REL (Nm/kg) .4 (.3) .5 (.3) .24
Hip Sagittal Plane (Flexion:+; Extension:- )
Joint torque at MKH (Nm/kg) .0 (.3) .1 (.7) .36 .1 (.2) .1 (.3) .22
Joint torque at MAP (Nm/kg) 51.0 (10.0) -.5 (1.0) * .58 .1 (.3) .2 (.2) .22
Joint torque at SFC (Nm/kg) 20.5 (14.2) -1.0 (.7) * .54 .0 (.2) -.1 (.4) .33
Joint torque at MER (Nm/kg) -2.0 (.7) -2.2 (.7) .22
Joint torque at REL (Nm/kg) -1.9 (.7) -2.2 (.8) .47
Knee Sagittal Plane (Flexion:+; Extension:- )
Joint torque at MKH (Nm/kg) -.1 (.3) -.3 (.4) .39 .0 (.1) .0 (.1) .22
Joint torque at MAP (Nm/kg) -1.0 (.6) -1.7 (.7) .91 .1 (.1) .1 (.1) .29
Joint torque at SFC (Nm/kg) .3 (.4) .4 (.4) .11 -.1 (.2) -.1 (.2) .21
Joint torque at MER (Nm/kg) -1.1 (.8) -1.5 (.6) * .58
Joint torque at REL (Nm/kg) -.5 (1.0) -1.0 (.9) * .53
Ankle Sagittal Plane (Dorsiflexion:+; Plantar flexion:- )
Joint torque at MKH (Nm/kg) .3 (.2) .3 (.2) .29 .0 (.0) .0 (.0) .26
Joint torque at MAP (Nm/kg) 1.1 (.5) 1.0 (.5) .16 .0 (.0) .0 (.0) * .62
Joint torque at SFC (Nm/kg) .7 (.5) .4 (.4) * .59 .0 (.1) -.1 (.0) .38
Joint torque at MER (Nm/kg) .9 (.5) .7 (.5) .25
Joint torque at REL (Nm/kg) .9 (.5) .8 (.5) .13
Maximum joint torques Pivot leg Stride leg
Max Hip Adduction Torque (Nm/kg) 1.0 (.9) .8 (.8) .17 .8 (.3) 1.0 (.4) ** .83
Max Hip Abduction Torque (Nm/kg) 2.0 (.5) 2.4 (.8) * .66 1.9 (.5) 2.0 (.5) .27
Max Hip Internal Rot Torque (Nm/kg) .6 (.3) .9 (.5) * .64 .6 (.3) .6 (.3) .15
Max Hip External Rot Torque (Nm/kg) .4 (.3) .4 (.3) .26 .3 (.1) .4 (.2) ** .87
Max Hip Flexion Torque (Nm/kg) .2 (.4) .6 (.9) * .59 .0 (.2) -.1 (.4) .12
Max Hip Extension Torque (Nm/kg) 1.8 (.6) 1.5 (.7) .45 2.4 (.6) 2.5 (.7) .18
Max Knee Flexion Torque (Nm/kg) .5 (.4) .5 (.4) .13 .2 (.4) .0 (.4) .49
Max Knee Extension Torque (Nm/kg) 1.6 (.5) 2.2 (.6) ** .93 1.7 (.4) 1.9 (.4) * .55
Max Ankle Dorsiflexion Torque (Nm/kg) 1.2 (.5) 1.2 (.4) .04 1.0 (.5) .9 (.5) .14
ES; Effect Size value. MKH; Maximal stride knee height. MAP; Maximal anterior push-off force. SFC; Stride foot contacts ground.
MER; Maximum shoulder external rotation. REL; Ball release. Max; Maximum. Rot; Rotation. * p < 0.05, Significant difference
between adolescent and collegiate pitchers. ** p < 0.01, Significant difference between adolescent and collegiate pitchers

kinematics. Although high levels of lower-limb strength cannot perform properly the open kinetic chain which
are necessary in pitching, the fact that the pitchers throw- transfers the energy of the lower limbs during pitching to
ing at high velocity generated greater momentum of the the trunk and arms.
lower limbs during pitching motion indicates improve- A limitation of the current study was that subjects
ments in dynamic muscular strength/power (Campbell et were throwing only fastballs. In baseball game, subjects
al., 2010; Elliott et al., 1988; Kageyama et al., 2014; Mac would be pitching not only the fastball but also the break-
Williams et al., 1998; Matsuo et al., 2001). Fleisig et al. ing ball (e.g., curveball, change-up, slider, etc.). Fleisig et
(1999) suggested that the increases in kinetic and velocity al. (2006) reported that collegiate baseball pitchers were
variables were due to increased strength and muscle mass significant differences in kinematic between the fastball
in the higher-level pitchers. Notably, adolescent baseball and curveball. According to a report by Dun et al. (2008),
pitchers cannot develop hip and knee joint torques corre- youth baseball pitchers were different in kinematic and
sponding to their body size compared with collegiate temporal among the 3 pitch types (fastball, curveball,
baseball pitchers. In addition, weakness in the knee and change-up). Therefore, the current results may reflect
hip has been implicated as a potential area for a break in only fastball. In the future, it will be necessary to examine
the open kinetic chain in the pitching cycle (Burkhart et differences in the kinematic and kinetic profiles of the
al., 2003). In other words, it seems that in addition to a trunk and lower limbs during baseball pitching between
small momentum of the lower limbs, adolescent pitchers adolescent and collegiate baseball pitchers, in relation
254 Adolescent and collegiate pitching mechanics

between fastball and breaking ball. copy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery 11,
296-300.
Kreighbaum, E. and Barthels, K.M. (1985) Biomechanics - A qualitative
Conclusion approach for studying human movement. 2nd edition. Burgess,
Minneapolis. 585-616.
The present study indicates that the kinematics of the Mac Williams, B.A., Choi, T., Perezous, M.K., Chao, E.Y. and McFar-
land, E.G. (1998) Characteristic ground-reaction forces in base-
lower limbs during baseball pitching are similar between ball pitching. The American Journal of Sports Medicine 26(1),
adolescent and collegiate pitchers, but the momentum of 66-71.
the lower limbs during pitching is lower in adolescent Matsuo, T., Escamilla, R.F., Fleisig, G.S., Barrentine, S.W. and An-
pitchers than in collegiate ones, even when the difference drews, J.R. (2001) Comparison of kinematic and temporal pa-
rameters between different pitch velocity groups. Journal of
in body mass is considered. Thus, the current results indi- Applied Biomechanics 17, 1-13.
cates that as compared to collegiate baseball pitchers, Milewski, M.D., Ounpuu, S., Solomito, M., Westwell, M. and Nissen,
adolescent baseball pitchers cannot generate the hip and C.W. (2012) Adolescent baseball pitching technique: lower ex-
knee joint torques in the pivot and stride leg, which con- tremity biomechanical analysis. Journal of Applied Biomechan-
ics 28(5), 491-501.
tribute to transfer the energy of trunk and the arm. Nakamura, Y., Yamane, K., Fujita, Y. and Suzuki, I. (2005) Somatosen-
sory Computation for man–machine interface from motion-
Acknowledgments capture data and musculoskeletal human model. IEEE Transac-
This study was not funded. The authors would like to thank all individu- tions on Robotics 21(1), 58-66.
als who participated in this study. Robb, A.J., Fleisig, G., Wilk, K., Macrina, L., Bolt, B., Pajaczkowski, J.
(2010) Passive ranges of motion of the hips and their relation-
ship with pitching biomechanics and ball velocity in profes-
References sional baseball pitchers. American Journal of Sports Medicine
38, 2487-2493.
Atwater, A.E. (1979) Biomechanics of overarm throwing movements
Sakurai, S., Ikegami, Y., Okamoto, A., Yabe, K. and Toyoshima, S.
and of throwing injuries. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews
(1993) A three-dimensional cinematographic analysis of upper
7, 43-85.
limb movement during fastball and curveball baseball pitches.
Burkhart, S.S., Morgan, C.D. and Kibler, W.B. (2003) The disabled
Journal of Applied Biomechanics 9, 47-65.
throwing shoulder: Spectrum of pathology part I: Patho anato-
Stodden, D.F., Fleisig, G.S., McLean, S.P., Lyman, S.L. and Andrews,
my and biomechanics. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthro-
J.R. (2001) Relationship of pelvis and upper torso kinematics to
scopic & Related Surgery 19(4), 404-420.
pitched baseball velocity. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 17,
Campbell, B.M., Stodden, D.F. and Nixon, M.K. (2010) Lower extremi-
164-172.
ty muscle activation during baseball pitching. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research 24(4), 964-971.
Dun, S., Loftice, J., Fleisig, G.S., Kingsley, D. and Andrews, J.C. (2008)
A biomechanical comparison of youth baseball pitches: Is the Key points
curveball potentially harmful? The American Journal of Sports
Medicine 36(4), 686-692.
Elliott, B., Grove, J.R. and Gibson, B. (1988) Timing of the lower limb  Collegiate baseball pitchers can generate the hip
drive and throwing limb movement in baseball pitching. Inter- and knee joint torques on the pivot leg for acceler-
national Journal of Sport Biomechanics 4, 59-67. ating the body forward.
Escamilla, R.F., Fleisig, G.S., Barrentine, S.W., Zheng, N. and Andrews,  Collegiate baseball pitchers can generate the hip
J.R. (1998) Kinematic comparisons of throwing different types
of baseball pitches. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 14, 1-23. and knee joint torques to control/stabilize the stride
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.G. and Buchner, A. (2007) G*Power 3: a leg in order to increase momentum on the stride leg
flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behav- during the arm acceleration phase.
ioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods  The kinematics of the lower limbs during baseball
39(2), 175-191.
Felter, M. and Dapena, J. (1986) Dynamics of the shoulder and elbow pitching are similar between adolescent and colle-
joints of the throwing arm during a baseball pitch. International giate pitchers, but the momentum of the lower
of Sport Biomechanics 2(4), 235-259. limbs during pitching is lower in adolescent pitch-
Fleisig, G.S., Barrantine, S., Zheng, N., Escamilla, R. and Andrews, J. ers than in collegiate ones, even when the differ-
(1999) Kinematic and kinetic comparison of baseball pitching
among various levels of development. Journal of Biomechanics ence in body mass is considered.
32(12), 1371-1375.  Adolescent baseball pitchers cannot generate the
Fleisig, G.S., Escamilla, R.F., Andrews, J.R. and Matsuo, T. (1996) hip and knee joint torques in the pivot and stride
Kinematic and Kinetic Comparison Between Baseball Pitching leg for transfer of the energy of trunk and the arm.
and Football Passing. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 12,
207-224.
Fleisig, G.S., Kingsley D.S., Loftice, J.W., Dinnen, K.P., Ranganathan,
R., Dun, S., Escamilla, R.F. and Andrews, J.R. (2006) Kinetic
comparison among the fastball, curveball, change-up, and slider
in collegiate baseball pitchers. The American Journal of Sports
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Medicine 34(3), 423-430 Masahiro KAGEYAMA
Ishida, K. and Hirano, Y. (2004) Effects of Non-throwing Arm on Trunk Employment
and Throwing Arm Movements in Baseball Pitching. Interna- Graduate School of Physical Education,
tional Journal of Sport and Health Science 2, 119-128. National Institute of Fitness and Sports in
Kageyama, M., Sugiyama, T., Takai, Y., Kanehisa, H. and Maeda, A. Kanoya
(2014) Kinematic and kinetic profiles of the lower limbs during Degree
baseball pitching in collegiate baseball pitchers. Journal of MSc
Sports Science and Medicine 13(4), 742-750.
Kibler, W.B. (1991) Role of the scapula in the overhead throwing mo-
Research interests
tion. Contemporary Orthopaedics 22, 525-532. Biomechanics
Kibler, W.B. (1995) Specificity and sensitivity of the anterior slide test E-mail: [email protected]
in throwing athletes with superior glenoid labral tears. Arthros-
Kageyama et al. 255

Takashi SUGIYAMA
Employment
Graduate School of Physical Education,
National Institute of Fitness and Sports in
Kanoya
Degree
MSc
Research interests
Biomechanics
E-mail: [email protected]
Hiroaki KANEHISA
Employment
National Institute of Fitness and Sports in
Kanoya
Degree
PhD
Research interests
Exercise physiology
E-mail: [email protected]
Akira MAEDA
Employment
National Institute of Fitness and Sports in
Kanoya
Degree
PhD
Research interests
Biomechanics
E-mail: [email protected]

 Akira Maeda
National Institute of Fitness and Sports in Kanoya, 1 Shiromizu,
Kanoya, Kagoshima 891-2393, Japan