Prediction: Mesenchymal stem cell injections will put an end to TJ surgery and doctors with multi-million $$ clinics.
Imagine having injection of stem cells into your elbow at the end of every one or two seasons in order to repair any damage to your UCL. Why wait until the UCL is torn?
These stem cells are the same as the ones your body uses every day to repair itself.
SultanofSwat posted:Prediction: Mesenchymal stem cell injections will put an end to TJ surgery and doctors with multi-million $$ clinics.
Imagine having injection of stem cells into your elbow at the end of every one or two seasons in order to repair any damage to your UCL. Why wait until the UCL is torn?
These stem cells are the same as the ones your body uses every day to repair itself.
I hope you are right. But at best, I think this will help the future children of the current generation of HS pitchers, rather than the kids of parents posting on this site now.
Dominik85 posted:Btw recurrence rate is higher after TJ. It is good but not as good as the original.
As for risk reward I think it is worth it if you are in the 85-89 range because it makes you draftable and if you get hurt you can still have a normal life.
Now if you are 93 already not sure if it makes sense to ramp your arm up to 98 although if you get 5m who cares.
Maybe as a team you should try to look for arms that are not as "turbo charged".
"Turbo Charged" is the key phrase to this entire discussion. If you really take time & dig into this topic, you will learn that there is current, unpublished, valid research, that definitively shows a link with HS age high velocity pitchers who have engaged in weighted implement training & resulting injury. It is really no longer disputable. The problem with the weighted baseball training is that it "works." The reality is that it does not strengthen the arm but increases the "layback" or ROM thereby increasing the velo. The cost is often, not always, damaged tissue in the process.
This not to say that "all" who engage will break down. The data suggests that MLB analysts are now understanding its more about "how" the velo got there vs the actual #. If player A has done extensive "velocity training" with weighted implements to get to 95 at 18 years old, he still has value, but his value is less than identical player B who has not. Player A breaks down at a much higher percentage. His body was not really meant to operate at that velo. B may still break down, but the odds ($$) are he is a safer bet, no doubt.
So what does this all mean? It means that based upon recent history & Millions upon Millions of $$ spent on high velo HS pitchers who have done extensive velo training, the market is now trending against those who got the velo by max distance & heavy ball throwing. If the analysts can see a gradual progression over time, relative to the velo, this is the preference.
My own, personal take is this: If you are youth level (HS & below), I would stay away from the heavy ball. Crush the core, legs, weights (if mature enough), flexibility, throw plenty. Skip the heavy ball. If you are back end of College or Pro Ball with a foot out the door & need to add velo to stay in it or get a shot, toss the weighted balls & let it rip. It will likely work. If you break down, it was worth the risk.
There’s also this regarding weighted ball, with our very own Mr Boddy as a contributor.
Chico Escuela posted:I hope you are right. But at best, I think this will help the future children of the current generation of HS pitchers, rather than the kids of parents posting on this site now.
I think this is available to anyone now. I wouldn't be surprised if some MLB pitchers are already doing this. There was a breakthrough in availability around 5 years ago. Your own hip can provide 5000 or so cells, but umbilical cords from others have millions of stem cells. Medical miracles await. Maybe old guys like me could go in and get a lube job on all of our joints soon. 
Btw I'm a big fan of overload underload training but I don't love that now 10yos get posted throwing max effort pull downs (which is supramaximal throwing due to the run up.) with slogans like "max intent".
Nothing against a bit of plyo work but really forcing max effort and supramaximal effort at age 10-11 is imo over the top.
You can still start that at 15-16.
Steve A. posted:Dominik85 posted:Btw recurrence rate is higher after TJ. It is good but not as good as the original.
As for risk reward I think it is worth it if you are in the 85-89 range because it makes you draftable and if you get hurt you can still have a normal life.
Now if you are 93 already not sure if it makes sense to ramp your arm up to 98 although if you get 5m who cares.
Maybe as a team you should try to look for arms that are not as "turbo charged".
"Turbo Charged" is the key phrase to this entire discussion. If you really take time & dig into this topic, you will learn that there is current, unpublished, valid research, that definitively shows a link with HS age high velocity pitchers who have engaged in weighted implement training & resulting injury. It is really no longer disputable. The problem with the weighted baseball training is that it "works." The reality is that it does not strengthen the arm but increases the "layback" or ROM thereby increasing the velo. The cost is often, not always, damaged tissue in the process.
This not to say that "all" who engage will break down. The data suggests that MLB analysts are now understanding its more about "how" the velo got there vs the actual #. If player A has done extensive "velocity training" with weighted implements to get to 95 at 18 years old, he still has value, but his value is less than identical player B who has not. Player A breaks down at a much higher percentage. His body was not really meant to operate at that velo. B may still break down, but the odds ($$) are he is a safer bet, no doubt.
So what does this all mean? It means that based upon recent history & Millions upon Millions of $$ spent on high velo HS pitchers who have done extensive velo training, the market is now trending against those who got the velo by max distance & heavy ball throwing. If the analysts can see a gradual progression over time, relative to the velo, this is the preference.
My own, personal take is this: If you are youth level (HS & below), I would stay away from the heavy ball. Crush the core, legs, weights (if mature enough), flexibility, throw plenty. Skip the heavy ball. If you are back end of College or Pro Ball with a foot out the door & need to add velo to stay in it or get a shot, toss the weighted balls & let it rip. It will likely work. If you break down, it was worth the risk.
Thanks for the insight, Steve. For clarity, when you refer to "the heavy ball" and "weighted baseball training", is it correct to assume you are including the overload/underload balls that are just slightly above and below the weight of a reg ball?
CTbballDad posted:There’s also this regarding weighted ball, with our very own Mr Boddy as a contributor.
ctbballdad, thanks for sharing. What is your short version interpretation of this? At a glance, it is a bit confusing to my simple mind.
Also, something I find odd (if I am interpreting correctly) is that they go into very extensive detail with their testing and research with regard to the effects of a 6 week weighted ball program (among other aspects of the program and other aspects of training) but then say that the entire focus group had previous experience with weighted ball training. If they are already doing it, how can you measure effect?
SultanofSwat posted:Chico Escuela posted:I hope you are right. But at best, I think this will help the future children of the current generation of HS pitchers, rather than the kids of parents posting on this site now.
I think this is available to anyone now. I wouldn't be surprised if some MLB pitchers are already doing this. There was a breakthrough in availability around 5 years ago. Your own hip can provide 5000 or so cells, but umbilical cords from others have millions of stem cells. Medical miracles await. Maybe old guys like me could go in and get a lube job on all of our joints soon.
I'm up for learning more if you have some links to share, but everything I read says that moving from the petri dish to successful human therapies is still quite a ways off. There are clinics out there offering stem cell therapies--and making some extravagant--and unproven--claims about their treatments, but FDA has tried to close many of them down. (https://www.fda.gov/forconsume...pdates/ucm286155.htm )
It wouldn't surprise me if there are pitchers who are paying docs to try this; but right now they are essentially participating in unregulated experiments.
Again, if you have links to other takes, I'm interested. Not in promotional literature by for-profit stem-cell clinics, but in any actual studies you know of.
More info here, too: https://projects.sfchronicle.c.../stem-cells/clinics/
Btw interestingly despite the trend to draft hitters high overall about 55% of all drafted players are pitchers. Probably to account for the attrition as rosters usually have just under 50 percent pitchers.
Chico Escuela posted:I'm up for learning more if you have some links to share, but everything I read says that moving from the petri dish to successful human therapies is still quite a ways off. There are clinics out there offering stem cell therapies--and making some extravagant--and unproven--claims about their treatments, but FDA has tried to close many of them down. (https://www.fda.gov/forconsume...pdates/ucm286155.htm )
It wouldn't surprise me if there are pitchers who are paying docs to try this; but right now they are essentially participating in unregulated experiments.
Again, if you have links to other takes, I'm interested. Not in promotional literature by for-profit stem-cell clinics, but in any actual studies you know of.
https://www.mlb.com/news/angel...-therapy/c-180441542
"On May 2 [2016], Steve H. Yoon, a physician at the Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic in Southern California, extracted stem cells from Andrew Heaney's bone marrow and injected them into the damaged ulnar collateral ligament in his elbow. Fourteen days later, Yoon did the same with Garrett Richards.
Yoon estimates that he has performed stem-cell procedures on 15 to 20 Major League pitchers and that "less than 50 percent" ultimately needed Tommy John surgery
Dr. David Crane, who specializes in regenerative therapy for Blue Tail Medical Group in the Midwest, said he has done about 50 of these stem-cell procedures since 2004, the vast majority of them for pitchers in high school and college. About five were Major Leaguers, and Crane said only one wound up needing Tommy John surgery. He claims to have a 90-percent success rate overall, but he is also picky with the patients he chooses.
Said Crane: "If it's a partial tear, and they still have the healing potential, and the stem cells from bone marrow are good, it's a useful tool."
https://www.mlb.com/news/angel...-therapy/c-180441542
Btw a Year later Richards needed TJ anyway. In some cases it has worked (tanaka), but in many cases it seems like conservative treatment only delays TJ by a few months.
Dominik85 posted:Btw a Year later Richards needed TJ anyway. In some cases it has worked (tanaka), but in many cases it seems like conservative treatment only delays TJ by a few months.
I agree that many 'conservative' treatments like PRP and exercise likely only delay the problem. But, umbilical/marrow stem cell injections are totally different, in that new cells are created and the muscles/ligaments heal themselves. Think of how your skin heals itself when you get a cut.
I imagine that a complete tear couldn't be fixed except with TJ, but I don't know.
Note: I am not a doctor, but I play one on blogs.
