Quick Overview
University scientists tested 21 college baseball pitchers in three simulated five-inning games.
Each game had up to 70 fastballs. After every inning, pitchers sat, used an arm bike, or used EMS on the throwing arm for six minutes.
Researchers measured heart rate, effort, arm motion, and blood lactate. Only EMS cut lactate, from 3.85 to 2.01. Sitting left it flat. The bike raised it. Eighteen of 21 pitchers preferred EMS. A peer-reviewed US strength journal published the work.
That evidence suggests EMS can help pitchers with short recovery between innings. Other stop-start athletes may gain too.
Read the full post for every number.
We always provide direct links to the original research at the end of every article so you can review the evidence yourself.
Six Minutes Between Innings: What a College Pitching Study Found About EMS Recovery
Picture a pitcher walking off the mound.
His arm has just thrown another hard fastball.
He has only a few minutes before the next inning starts.
Coaches want him fresh.
He wants his arm to feel ready again.
A team of sports scientists put that moment to the test.
They published their work in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
That journal is produced by the National Strength and Conditioning Association in the United States.
The researchers came from university physical therapy and kinesiology departments.
They studied 21 Division I college baseball pitchers.
The pitchers were young, trained athletes.
Their average age was 20.4 years.
They averaged 185.9 cm tall and 86.5 kg.
Body fat averaged 11.2 percent.
Eight were starters.
Thirteen were relief pitchers.
Each man pitched three simulated five-inning games.
There were four days of rest between games.
Each game asked for up to 70 fastballs.
Every pitch had to be at least 95 percent of his best fastball speed.
That kept effort high and honest.
After every inning came six minutes of recovery.
The three methods were rotated so order would not skew the results.
One method was passive recovery.
The pitcher simply sat.
The second was active recovery.
He pedaled an upper-body bike at a falling workload.
The third was electrical muscle stimulation, or EMS.
Pads sat on the throwing arm.
They covered the forearm, biceps, triceps, deltoid, and upper trapezius.
The unit used a gentle, falling pulse rate over six minutes.
The team measured more than how the pitchers felt.
They tracked shoulder and elbow range of motion before pitching, after pitching, and 24 hours later.
They recorded heart rate after every pitch and every 30 seconds in recovery.
They asked for a rating of perceived exertion after the last pitch and after recovery.
They took fingertip blood samples.
Those samples showed blood lactate right after pitching and again after the six-minute break.
Range of motion did not change in a special way with any one method.
External rotation rose a little after pitching, then settled by the next day.
The recovery choice did not drive that pattern.
Heart rate fell in all three conditions.
Sitting brought it down the most.
EMS brought it down in a similar way to sitting.
The bike kept heart rate a little higher.
How hard the work felt told a clearer story.
After pitching, effort scores sat near 3 on a 0-to-10 scale.
After sitting, the score dropped to about 1.5.
After EMS, it dropped to about 1.3.
After the bike, it stayed higher, near 2.4.
The blood numbers were the sharpest finding.
Mean blood lactate after pitching sat near 3.2 to 3.9 mmol per litre, depending on the day.
After six minutes of sitting, it barely moved.
It went from 3.22 to 3.35.
After the bike, it rose.
It went from 3.86 to 4.55.
After EMS, it fell.
It went from 3.85 to 2.01.
That drop with EMS was statistically clear.
The other two methods did not show the same fall.
When the pitchers ranked the three options, the result was almost unanimous.
Eighteen of 21 said EMS felt like the best recovery.
Sitting came second.
The bike came last.
Pitch speed held through all five innings.
In this setup, lactate never climbed high enough to wreck velocity.
The scientists said that out loud.
They also said the picture might change if a pitcher threw more than 14 pitches an inning.
It might change if total pitch counts rose.
It might change if lactate climbed higher than it did here.
That is the honest limit of the study.
It was a controlled, simulated game.
It was not a full championship series.
It still gives a clean signal.
EMS on the throwing arm helped clear blood lactate in six minutes.
It let heart rate settle.
It lowered how hard the work felt.
Pitchers preferred it.
Baseball is stop-start work.
Hard effort.
Short rest.
Then hard effort again.
Other sports share that rhythm.
Think tennis serves.
Think cricket spells.
Think swimming relays.
Think any throwing or striking sport with brief breaks.
The same logic may help other trained athletes who need a short reset.
It may help people who want recovery without extra cardio strain.
This paper does not prove that for every sport.
It does show a measured benefit in one demanding throwing group.
The work was peer reviewed.
It used repeated measures on the same athletes.
It used standard tools for heart rate, perceived exertion, motion, and blood lactate.
It named its limits.
That is how serious sports science is supposed to look.
EMS is not magic.
It is a recovery tool with a simple job in this study.
Help the arm settle between innings.
Help lactate fall.
Help the pitcher feel ready for the next set of throws.
For coaches and athletes who live in short windows of rest, that finding is worth knowing.
Featured Product
ORIEMS FIT ULTIMATE KIT 💪 is a 100% Australian award-winning product.
Voted YEAR’S BEST ⭐ for 2024 and 2025.
It is a wide-range targeted muscle stimulator enhanced with EMS technology, designed to support your fitness and relaxation routine. 🌟
Trusted by more than 10,000 happy users with over 450 five-star Google reviews. 😊
Check availability.
Product Disclaimer:
This product is designed only to support fitness and relaxation routines. It is not a medical device and has not been evaluated or registered by the TGA. It is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease or medical condition. It may not be suitable for everyone. Please consult your doctor or healthcare practitioner before using it.
Like this Research Digest? 📚Share it with your friends 💬👇 |
About Our Health Research Digest
We bring you the latest and most important health research papers — simplified and easy to understand.
Each study is broken down into clear, concise summaries and engaging podcasts, with direct links to the original research so you can explore further whenever you like.
We also create content based on your requests. If you’re curious about a specific health topic or would like us to find relevant studies, simplify the findings, and turn them into a podcast, just let us know.
Don’t hesitate to reach out — we’re here to help make health research accessible and useful for you. Contact us anytime.
More EMS Research Scientists Are Studying
1. Can EMS reduce fat?
2. Can EMS increase calorie burn while sitting?
3. Can EMS support muscle toning and muscle gains?
4. Can EMS improve athletic training?
5. Can EMS play a role in muscle loss & frailty?
6. Can EMS reduce pain?
7. EMS vs TENS: What are the differences?
8. Can EMS play a role after stroke?
Research Summary
| Detail | Summary |
|---|---|
| Study title | Effects of Three Recovery Protocols on Range of Motion, Heart Rate, Rating of Perceived Exertion, and Blood Lactate in Baseball Pitchers During a Simulated Game |
| Authors | Courtney D. Warren, David J. Szymanski, and Merrill R. Landers |
| Research centres | Physical therapy and kinesiology departments linked to Chandler, Arizona; Louisiana Tech University; and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas |
| Journal and publisher | Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, National Strength and Conditioning Association, United States |
| Publication details | November 2015; Volume 29, Number 11; pages 3016–3025 |
| Original study link | https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/fulltext/2015/11000/effects_of_three_recovery_protocols_on_range_of.3.aspx |
| DOI | 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000487 |
| Purpose | Compare passive rest, active arm-bike work, and EMS after each inning during a simulated baseball game |
| Participants | 21 Division I college baseball pitchers; 8 starters and 13 relievers; mean age 20.4 ± 1.4 years |
| Athlete profile | Mean height 185.9 ± 8.4 cm; mean weight 86.5 ± 8.9 kg; mean body fat 11.2 ± 2.6% |
| Study design | Each pitcher completed 3 simulated games, 4 days apart, with the 3 recovery methods assigned in random order |
| Pitching load | 5 innings per game; 14 fastballs per inning; up to 70 game pitches; each pitch at or above 95% of best fastball speed |
| Recovery window | 6 minutes after every inning, matching the time used to throw the 14 pitches |
| What was measured | Shoulder and elbow range of motion, heart rate, rating of perceived exertion, and fingertip blood lactate |
| Blood lactate finding | EMS fell from 3.85 to 2.01 mmol/L; sitting went from 3.22 to 3.35; the arm bike rose from 3.86 to 4.55 |
| Heart rate finding | Heart rate fell after all 3 recoveries; sitting reached about 94.9 bpm, EMS about 96.2 bpm, and the arm bike about 103.9 bpm |
| Effort finding | Perceived exertion dropped with sitting (2.99 to 1.52) and EMS (3.3 to 1.26), but stayed higher after the arm bike (3.14 to 2.39) |
| Motion finding | Recovery method did not change range of motion; external rotation rose a little after pitching, then returned by 24 hours |
| Player preference | 18 of 21 pitchers ranked EMS first; sitting was next; the arm bike was liked least |
| Study limit | Lactate never rose high enough in this protocol to cut pitch speed; authors said EMS may matter more if pitch counts climb above this load |
| Platform | Listen Now |
|---|---|
|
|
Listen on Apple |
|
|
Listen on Spotify |
|
|
Watch on YouTube |
|
|
Listen on Audible |
|
|
Listen on Podbean |
Disclaimer
This article is published for general information and educational purposes only. It does not constitute medical advice, health advice, diagnosis, or treatment of any kind.
All content on this website, including any studies, research, or information mentioned, is provided for informational purposes only and does not imply or guarantee any specific health outcomes.
We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected in any way to any researchers, universities, research centres, journals, or institutions referenced in any article. No reference to any study, researcher, or publication should be interpreted as an endorsement or recommendation of any products sold or featured on this website.
Our products (and any products featured or linked in this article) are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, prevent, or manage any disease or medical condition. Individual results may vary significantly. No guarantees or warranties are made regarding effectiveness, safety, or specific outcomes.
Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before using any product mentioned on this website or making any changes to your health routine, especially if you have a pre-existing medical condition, are pregnant, breastfeeding, have a pacemaker, or are taking medication.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, ORIEMS FIT, its directors, employees, authors, affiliates, and agents disclaim all liability for any loss, damage, cost, expense, or injury (whether direct, indirect, consequential, special, or incidental) arising from the use of, or reliance upon, any information in this article or from the purchase or use of any products featured or sold on this website.
© [ORIEMS FIT] – All Rights Reserved.


