If you’re like me, you love your protein supplements, but which is the best? Whey protein is said to be best for after workouts, while Casein is the “before bed” protein of choice, and then there’s soy (like anybody actually takes that). I personally take Whey and Casein, but some people can’t or don’t want to take two protein supplements (protein supplements are very expensive), so which is the most affective? In the past i’ve heard that whey is a fast digested protein so it’s best after a workout or before, while casein is best taken before bed because it is a slow digested protein (and I haven’t heard anything about soy really). Recent studies, however show there may be a clear winner in the protein supplement race, and whey is the strongest candidate.

So, is whey protein better than the rest? The null hypothesis here would be that whey and casein proteins yield the same results, so we would have to reject that hypothesis. A recent Study was published by the Journal of Applied Physiology that showed that while all proteins increased mixed muscle protein synthesis (MPS), whey works the best. The study took 18 males, 6 in each group and had them go through leg extensions with weight and ingest protein at rest and after their workout. The young men in the study drank 10g of protein; 6 drank whey, 6 drank casein, and 6 drank soy. So what did the study find? “MPS after consumption of whey was ∼93% greater than casein (P < 0.01) and ∼18% greater than soy (P = 0.067). A similar result was observed after exercise (whey > soy > casein); MPS following whey consumption was ∼122% greater than casein (P < 0.01) and 31% greater than soy (P < 0.05).” So basically, whey protein and soy protein produce better results when taken at rest and taken after a workout. That’s great but didn’t I ask if whey was the king of the hill? Don’t worry the data supported that theory too as you can see above and by the writing in the study: “We conclude that the feeding-induced simulation of MPS in young men is greater after whey hydrolysate or soy protein consumption than casein both at rest and after resistance exercise; moreover, despite both being fast proteins, whey hydrolysate stimulated MPS to a greater degree than soy after resistance exercise.” According to this study whey really did produce the best results in terms of MPS, which is the basis for building muscle in weight lifters. For young men at least, if you want to pick one protein go with a fast digested one, specifically whey protein.

Whey is better for young men according to one study, but what about older men? How do whey and casein compare in that scenario? The American Society for Nutrition observed this in their study. The study first stated that both proteins: “have been suggested to modulate postprandial muscle protein accretion.” Wait what does that mean? Postprandial muscle protein accretion is MPS, the repairing of the muscles. The study was designed so that “A total of 48 older men aged 74 ± 1 y (mean ± SEM) were randomly assigned to ingest a meal-like amount (20 g) of intrinsically labeled whey, casein, or casein hydrolysate. Postprandial mixed muscle protein fractional synthetic rates (FSRs) were calculated from the ingested tracer.” The older men were examined and the study found another similar result. “The peak appearance rate of dietary protein–derived phenylalanine in the circulation was greater with whey and casein hydrolysate than with casein (P < 0.05).” So the whey and casein hydrolysate preformed the best at their peak, but what was the best overall at repairing the muscles? “FSR values were higher after whey (0.15 ± 0.02%/h) than after casein (0.08 ± 0.01%/h; P < 0.01) and casein hydrolysate (0.10 ± 0.01%/h; P < 0.05) ingestion.” So whey again preformed the best in older men as well according the this study, so no matter what your age, if you want to increase strength and muscle take whey protein.

The findings in these two studies were enough to reject the null hypothesis that whey and casein proteins are equally as effective. Both studies showed that while each protein yielded positive results, whey protein produced the best results. Whey improved MPS and FRS while at rest and post workout. I highly doubt this issue suffers from the file drawer problem because many weight lifting gurus praise casein protein and would seek information to publish positive results about it. These findings are not due to reverse causation because both studies were done well and correctly. The pure true fact is that whey protein, no matter your age, has been proven to be the best for gaining strength and muscle growth. So if you can only choose one, next time you are at GNC reach for the whey and get the strongest protein on the market.

Are you a believer in CrossFit? Get off the bandwagon because you could work yourself to death. For those of you who don’t understand what I just said at all because you don’t know what CrossFit is, CrossFit is a workout regiment which includes quick “all out” sets with maximum weight that push the subject to the brink of exhaustion. CrossFit is very popular amongst police officers, Army Rangers, and athletes, but recent studies and cases show that CrossFit could be dangerous and even deadly. While CrossFit provides some benefits for the average gymgoer, weight training and cardio will produce the same results or close to them in a longer period of time, so is it worth it? Should you risk your health for your favorite CrossFit workout?

CrossFit is sweeping the nation as a popular high intensity workout, but it has been strongly linked to rhabdomyolysis (or Rhaddo) specifically Exertional Rhabdomyolysis (ER). ER can best be described as “The breakdown of muscle from extreme physical exertion.” (Wikipedia) The muscle fibers then leak into the blood stream and cause kidney failure. (Wikipedia) So, what does CrossFit have to do with ER? Greg Glassman of the CrossFit Journal explains in his Article. Glassman first acknowledges CrossFit, a workout he endorses, is dangerous: “As it turns out, the burning is rhabdo, and we now find ourselves obligated not just to explain CrossFit’s potency but to warn of its potential lethality.” Glassman explains further that CrossFit workouts have lead to multiple cases of ER: “To date we have seen five cases of exertional rhabdo associated with CrossFit workouts. Each case resulted in the hospitalization of the afflicted.” While the longest stay was just six days the pain felt by the afflicted victim, “a SWAT guy” (as described by Glassman) was so bad that a morphine drip only “Prevented him from screaming”. So a trained former SWAT guy, who now works as a sheriff according to Glassman, came down with ER from CrossFit why wouldn’t the average gym goer? Is this excruciating pain and danger to your body worth the marginal gains you get?

Other sources have also reported that CrossFit can cause ER. Liam Hallam reported that CrossFit, among other things, can contribute to ER in adults in his Article. Hallam stated “Exertional rhabdomyolysis often occurs when exercisers over-exert themselves in the gym, often as a resuly of performing an extreme amount of repetitions at unaccustomed weight levels for extended periods of time which seems to follow many of the CrossFit WOD’s published online and in Boxes across the globe.” Hallam discusses in his Article that this didn’t happen intentionally and CrossFit organizers who are putting out these “WODs” (Workout of the Day” aren’t trying to have you over exhaust yourself, but it is a risk you take when preforming CrossFit. Hallam does state how right now there is not enough evidence to declare CrossFit completely dangerous because the findings are anecdotal and therefore not overwhelming in number: “Unfortunately there are currently no scientific figures available on the prevalence of rhabdomyolysis in CrossFit to confirm or deny these claims. Only anecdotal details of it’s sufferers which sadly does not confirm an increased incidence in the CrossFit population.” So maybe there isn’t enough evidence to declare CrossFit deadly or extremely dangerous, but there are risks involved in doing it.

Another alarming element to CrossFit is how the ER “sneaks up on you”. Glassman further states in his Article; “The victims were not excessively panting, straining, grunting, or otherwise expressing abnormal discomfort from the workouts.” Glassman even discussed how athletes who did marginal low-intensity workouts came down with ER after CrossFit exercises. This is terrifying. If an athlete can get that sick after a small workout, why can’t you; and if the effects of ER are so hard to detect how could you even prevent it? Simple answer: don’t do CrossFit.

In conclusion, is CrossFit safe? there is not overwhelming evidence that says it isn’t, but there is a high risk involved in doing it. Even the founders and supporters of CrossFit like Greg Glassman  warn of the dangers of CrossFit and specify that cases of ER do come from CrossFit workouts. The five findings are anecdotal, so these stories may just be blips on the radar, but I wouldn’t risk it. Personally I weight train everyday and have never been caught up in the “hoopla” over CrossFit. If you lift weights properly and push yourself doing that then there is no reason to even take the risk of CrossFit. Weight training, cardio, and diet will yield similar results to those of CrossFit, so even if it isn’t proven highly dangerous why take the risk? People have gotten ER while doing CrossFit and the numbers are not always reported, so why take the risk? I sure wouldn’t after reading this, but since the findings are anecdotal I can’t definitively say CrossFit is dangerous. If you do decide to do CrossFit, just get supervised and be careful.

“Want to lose that annoying belly fat? Run!” I’m sure everyone has heard it for years. Hit the track or treadmill and churn out those miles, but recent studies have shown that this may not be the best idea. High Intensity-Interval Training (HIIT) has been around the body building community for a while because it provides a quick effective way to burn unwanted calories and fat. Now, HIIT is leaking into the mainstream and starting to challenge Continuous Aerobic Training (CAT) to become the “best cardio for fat loss”. So when it comes to burning fat, should you stick to CAT or follow the new trend and switch to HIIT.

In this scenario, the null hypothesis would be that HIIT training doesn’t affect fat loss any differently than CAT training. To reject the null substantial evidence would have to be presented in this area.

Elisabeth Sherratt MS. RN. wrote an article discussing the best way to burn fat. In her article, Sherratt discussed the pros and cons of each workout. When it comes to CAT, you need to change up your exercises according to a 2006 study done by National Runners Health Study. 8080 male runners were tracked over 9 years and the results showed that the overwhelming majority of the runners gained fat and waist circumference. Now, some of that was due to age and runners failing to continuing their running, but the runners who actually increased their milage over time gained little to no fat. Sherratt says you would need to increase your running total by “3 times each week” to maintain your body fat and even lose it.

HIIT has also been proven to increase calorie burn even AFTER a workout. Sherratt sites studies that state “HIIT offers the metabolic benefit of excess post exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC). After HIIT exercise, oxygen consumption (and therefore calorie expenditure) remains elevated, as the working muscle cells restore to their pre-exercise physiological and metabolic baseline.  Calorie burning continues after exercise has stopped translating into a greater total calorie burn.” So when doing HIIT training, you can burn calories even after your workout, which is similar to the way weight training works. These findings were backed in another article of meta-analysis done by Micah Zuhl, and Len Kravitz. They found that HIIT workouts also burn calories after the workout is finished as well: “Another metabolic benefit of HIIT is excess postexercise oxygen consumption (EPOC). After an exercise session, oxygen consumption (and thus caloric expenditure) remains elevated as the working muscle cells restore physiological and metabolic factors in the cell to pre-exercise levels. This translates into higher and longer calorie burning after exercise has stopped.” So basically, if your looking to keep burning calories after you workout, try HIIT training over CAT training.

The last key aspect Sherratt discusses is burning of visceral fat, often times found around the belly. “Hottenrott, Ludyga, and Schulze (2012) tested recreational runners, for 12 weeks.  One group run 2.5 hours of long distance running compared to a group that ran four 30-minute interval workouts per week.  After 12 weeks, the BMI of both groups was nearly the same; however, the sprinters lost more belly fat, a decrease of 16.5% with no fat free mass loss, meaning they preserved their muscle.  The long distance group lost 6.5 % of their belly fat and a considerable amount of muscle.” So, according to this study if you want to burn belly fat go with HIIT. Another article backed this finding and even went a step further in talking about fat loss in general. Micah Zuhl, MS and Len Kravitz PhD examined the affects of both HIIT and CAT training, but found one key difference in their meta-analysis. It seems that HIIT training is in fact better for burning fat. “Increasing mitochondrial density can be considered a skeletal-muscle and metabolic adaptation. One focal point of interest for metabolic adaptations is the metabolism of fat for fuel during exercise. Because of the nature of high-intensity exercise, its effectiveness for burning fat has been closely examined. Perry et al. (2008) showed that fat oxidation, or fat burning, was significantly higher and carbohydrate oxidation (burning) significantly lower after 6 weeks of interval training.” If you want to burn fat, and burn it fast, start HIIT training and drop CAT training.

What did I find in my examination of training? If you want to burn fat, try out HIIT training. Listen, it may not be for everyone, but I feel that after the overwhelming evidence points to the benefits of HIIT training over CAT training. There is enough evidence here to reject the null hypothesis and go with HIIT training over CAT training when it comes to fat loss. The meta-analysis could suffer from the file drawer problem, because studies that show that both exercises work equally may not be published, but I feel there is still enough evidence to prove this. I personally have been working to lose weight for 4 months now and have been doing CAT training along with my weight training exercises, my research produces enough evidence for me to switch over to HIIT training, what about you?

When buying shoes for basketball in the past, I have always thought to go with the high top shoe. I have a history of ankle sprains and a few breaks, so I figured I would play it safe and go with more support, but I may have been wrong in my decision. Could high top shoes provide no benefits over low top shoes, or even make the chances of getting injured higher? I know these sound like outlandish statements, but they could be correct according to a few studies. For years now high top shoes have been thought to be safer than low top shoes and a way to prevent ankle injuries, but this idea might be flawed.

   The University of Oklahoma did a comprehensive study on sneakers in 1993. The Study examined high top sneakers, high top sneakers with air compression, and low top sneakers randomized among 622 college students during intramural basketball. The students were split equally into three groups and assigned sneakers to wear during games, which were checked in and out before the games. Trainers reported the injuries, and the players themselves were free to participate freely in their games. The study showed that there was no benefit to wearing high top shoes. 15 players sustained ankle injuries during their playing, 7 sustained injuries in high tops, and 4 sustained injuries in each of the other groups. The rate at which injuries were sustained per player per minute were nearly identical, and the p-value showed no difference in the three types of shoe. The Study found that, if you are buying shoes for support, you shouldn’t necessarily go high top because it makes no difference with ankle injuries.

An article by breakingmuscle.com examined the study done by Oklahoma among other studies and found a similar result. The article stated that many doctors concurred that low top shoes help to strengthen ankles and improve range of motion, which in the long run, will help to prevent injuries. The doctors also stated that high top sneakers restricted range of motion, which lead to further injury and that their primary purpose has evolved to style rather than protection. As kids wear high top shoes everyday, their ankles get weaker says the articles author Jeanne Goodes: “With high-top shoes becoming an everyday shoe for youth, there is a significant decrease in their ankle function. Because the lacing and extra material of these shoes act as a brace, the ankle suffers from a decrease in flexibility and strength.” Other doctors agree with this statement including Martin Kuban: “If the ankle joint, tendons, ligaments, and muscles are not actively worked in their intended full range of motion, then mobility is greatly decreased.” So, not even on the court, but just wearing shoes everyday, high tops could be working against their intended purpose of protecting your ankles.

In conclusion, while the study was mostly observational, the random allocation of college kids made it an experimental study. This study found no difference in wearing high top shoes compared to wearing low top shoes when it came to injuries, in other words the study failed to reject the null hypothesis. I suppose this study could suffer form the file drawer problem, with other studies not being published, but I find it unlikely because of how much the shoe companies have at stake here. Reverse causation is also a possibility here. Ankle sprains become more common after more injuries, so if you have an ankle injury then wear high top shoes to prevent it and get injured again that could make sense, but the study was well developed so this should not have been an issue. All things considered, should you wear high top sneakers? or are you better off with low top ones; the answer is: it doesn’t seem to matter. It is your choice high tops sneakers are often more money, so maybe low tops are a better option, but if you plan to wear high top sneakers everyday be careful you may be hurting your ankles. When it comes to sports it doesn’t matter, but when it comes to fashion, you may want to go low.

Growing up, I always heard my mother say “You shouldn’t always wear a hat or you will go bald.” Of course like most things my mother said I ignored her, I wore (and still wear) a hat everyday, but what if she was right? One of the oldest beliefs passed down from generation to generation was that wearing a hat would cause hair loss. This idea is highly questionable, first off: by what mechanism could this even happen? And Second: Why hat’s and not just regular wear and tear on your hair? In this blog I went looking for the answer as to whether hats could cause baldness.

The two variables in this problem are easy to identify: the x variable here is: Wearing a hat; the y variable is: baldness or loss of hair. So was there enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis that: wearing a hat does nothing to induce hair loss? Not exactly. In his book, “Baldness, A Social History”, Kenny Segrave discussed where this idea originated. You can read the full book here. Segrave spoke about many doctors, including Chevalier Jackson and Dr. A.F.A King, in the early 1900s who said balding was directly attributed to lack of circulation in the head and that tight hats were to blame. The many men argued that tight hats cut off circulation to the head, and this caused men to go bald. The pressure on the blood vessels cut off nutrients getting to the hair and then killed the hair, which caused men to lose it. The men argued that since women never wore tight hats, that is why they were not balding at the frequency of men and that this was a huge issue the Dr.’s always brought up. Segrave later described that once the hormonal and genetic basis for baldness was established, the idea of hats causing baldness faded from accepted medical thought and into “American Folklore”.

So we know where the idea comes from, but what about this “Folklore” in our world today, does it have any truth? This idea was discussed in detail HERE in an article found online. In this article, the idea of wearing a hat and loosing hair was attributed to a hair loss called “Traction Alopecia”, or some people even thought it contributed to “AGA” (Or male pattern baldness). First AGA was examined. To be brief, AGA is caused by a hormone that affects the base of the hair follicle called papilla. The hormone combines with other elements in the body to kill the follicle and cause hair to fall out. So could wearing a hat cause this? Absolutely not: “So now that we understand more or less why people go bald with AGA, back to the question at hand- “Does wearing hats contribute to AGA?” The wearing of a hat will not affect testosterone levels, thus affecting DHT production. Putting on a brain bucket will also not affect the PGD2 gene. The result: no hat wearing problems with AGA.” Alopecia is the scientific word for hair loss, and the traction comes from pulling the hair tight. While the mechanism could be in place if you are wearing a tight hat, the article stated that it simply was not possible for a hat to pull your hair that tight. The article discussed this in detail: “On the surface, it appears that wearing a hat could cause the tension needed to damage the follicle. However, research done on the subject tells a different story. Dr. Aman Samrao of the Harbor-UCLS Medical Center studies traction alopecia and he states “hats don’t provide nearly enough tension to cause alopecia. I don’t see how a hat could cause that, unless you’re wearing it so tightly that it’s pulling”. So unless you’re a masochist who likes wearing your hat so tightly it causes headaches and hair pulling, you wont get traction alopecia from sporting your favorite team’s headgear.” So could wearing a hat cause you to get AGA or Traction Alopecia? according to scientists, no.

Conclusion: So was my mother right? could wearing a hate make me go bald? It seems highly unlikely. Like any wives tale or American Folklore it seems like more of a tale than a fact. The idea that it could cause AGA is impossible and non-relevant because hats cannot cause hormonal changes, and there wouldn’t be enough force pulling your hair back to cause traction alopecia, so no it really couldn’t cause baldness. People still may argue: “Well I always see bald people in hats so what if you are wrong?” I argue that reverse causation could be a huge factor here. If you go bald, then you would want to wear a hat to prevent others from seeing that. I have many relatives struggling with hair loss, and hats are a popular choice in apparel for them among other people I see in hats. Reverse causation is definitely a plausible explanation for this. So in short, if you are worried about your hat causing you to go bald: don’t. Wear your favorite hat with pride and don’t worry about loosing any sleep (or hair) over it!

For years now doctors and trainers have advised injured patients to “Throw some ice on that”, but should you really? The ice numbs the pain of the injury and you are told that the more your injury is iced the sooner and better it will heal. The ice feels like it is helping, but is it really healing you or just numbing the pain? and could it actually be hurting your process of healing. Everyone has iced an injury in the past whether it be a bruise, or a sprained ankle, or just general muscle soreness, but recent studies have found that maybe we shouldn’t just “Throw some ice on that”.

PainScience.com discussed a 2013 study in a recent entry titled “Icing for injuries, Tendinitis, and Inflammation”, which found that icing may actually hurt your recover. The study, published by the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research in 2013, “Examined the influence of topical cooling on muscle damage markers and hemodynamic changes during recovery from eccentric exercise.” The study examined eleven male subjects after a small workout and concluded that ice not only didn’t help in the healing process of muscles after the workout, but actually made things worse. “Unexpectedly, greater elevations in circulating CK-MB and myoglobin above the control level were noted in the cooling trial during 48-72 hours of the post-exercise recovery period. Subjective fatigue feeling was greater at 72 hours after topical cooling compared with controls.” (Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research) So what does this mean? Icing doesn’t actually help muscle healing, in fact according to this study it “Delays the healing”.  (Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research) In other words, if you are sore after a workout and feel like “Throwing on some ice” you may not want to do that, it could delay your healing process.

So based on the evidence, you shouldn’t ice for basic soreness, but what about a muscle strain or a sprained ankle? The British Journal of Sports Medicine sees no benefit in that. In a 2012 study, the Journal found no hard evidence that icing truly heals or even aids in healing a muscle strain. The study observed and analyzed studies on animals, while also adding that the temperature of the muscles in these animals studies were much lower than in humans. This meant that the studies weren’t really applicable to humans and don’t prove that ice is an affecting treatment in muscle healing.  “Ice remains popular for acute muscle strain yet the evidence for its use is based on animal models which are not fully applicable to the clinical setting. Furthermore, few clinicians may consider factors such as the depth of the ‘damaged target tissue’ before initiating treatment.” (British Journal of Medicine) You can read the full study here. To clarify this study, the British Journal found that there is no PROVEN benefit to icing a strain or acute muscle injury. While ice may help, it also may not, which is enough to make us consider why doctors commonly recommend this “Panacea” as it was called by the Journal. In short, maybe ice helps, maybe it doesn’t, but there is no evidence that we should use it.

The first study is experimental, which proves that there are some negative affects of ice on muscles post-workout, but to be fair this doesn’t prove ALL icing is bad for you. The study was very specific to a light small workout, so it doesn’t prove all icing is bad. The second study was purely observational so it doesn’t prove anything, but that is the point of the study. There is not any hard evidence that icing works for acute muscle injuries, the study tried to seek proof that ice helped, and found none. The null hypothesis that “ice does nothing for muscle injuries” could not be rejected, therefore the study didn’t prove ice was effective or ineffective. While both studies could rule out reverse causation, because in this case, it is not applicable; Neither can prove all icing is bad or good.

So in conclusion, next time you are sore or strain a muscle and the doctor says “Throw some ice on that” should you do it? Based on the information, I don’t see why you would. If something has no proven effect, and may in fact make things worse, why waste your time? We have a limited amount of time anyway, so why waste 20 minutes icing an injury if there is no proof that it will help you heal any sooner. When it comes to injuries, after my research, I say “Don’t throw some ice on it”.

For years now, it seems that major league ball clubs and fans have associated pitching with height. The common belief is that the taller a pitcher is, the better that pitcher performs and the more durable he is. If you believe this theory, you won’t find many people who disagree with you, and you would have plenty of examples: Randy Johnson, Nolan Ryan, Clayton Kershaw, David Price the list goes on and on. Many GM’s around Major League Baseball believe that taller pitchers are also more durable, therefore worth the long term investment. So does height really make a pitcher more effective? Are pitchers like Pedro Martinez, Tim Lincecum, Billy Wagner, and Whitney Ford; who are all under 6 foot tall, flukes? Or should scouts focus less on the pitchers height and more on his statistics? Recent studies have shown that there is no correlation between size and pitching. While many taller pitchers are very successful and durable recent studies, from credible organizations such as SABR, have shown that size doesn’t matter when it comes to pitching. Recent findings now suggest that, contrary to popular belief, height has no affect on a pitcher’s effectiveness or durability.

A recent study conducted by SABR, or The Society For Baseball Research, showed that there is no direct correlation between the height of a pitcher and his ability and subsequent durability. In an article written by Glenn P. Greenberg, the height of pitcher’s and its affect on different facets of the game is debated. Greenberg states that many baseball minds believe taller pitchers are just better than their shorter counterparts, “One common baseball theory is that taller pitchers are more durable and just intrinsically better than shorter pitchers.” (Greenberg) Greenberg continues the study by only selecting players that were good enough to be drafted by baseball clubs, and formulated his experiment from there. Linear regressions and chi-square tests were used to determine the answer to this complicated question, which Greenberg soon found the answer to, “As a result, the most this paper can say is that, when it comes to players who are good enough to be drafted in the Rule 4 amateur draft, the correlation between height and a player’s effectiveness or durability is not statistically significant.” (Greenberg) So Greenberg set out to prove that size wasn’t a factor in effectiveness of a pitcher. Greenberg studied relief pitchers and starters from the years 1990-2007, and what he found was contrary to popular belief. “The data show no evidence of a statistically significant correlation, for starting pitchers, between height (in inches) and any of the customary measures of pitching effectiveness. These include strikeouts per nine innings, walks per nine innings, strikeouts per walk, home runs per nine innings, WHIP (walks plus hits divided by innings pitched), and earned run average. The highest r-square was .5 percent for a nonlinear regression for strikeouts per nine innings pitched. An r-square of .5 percent is extraordinarily small. It means that height has little ability to predict the number of strikeouts per nine innings a pitcher would throw. In addition, the p-values are all very high, the lowest being .14—almost three times greater than the maximum p-value indicating statistical significance.” (Greenberg). You can see this data by clicking HERE. Lincoln Hamilton of Scouting Science seems to agree with Greenberg and his findings. Hamilton studied every pitcher in 2007 and focused on their VORP (Victory Over Replacement Player, which is similar to WAR) and he found that, “The correlation for all 2007 pitchers’ VORP and height is just 0.086, which straddles the line between very small positive correlation and statistically insignificant.” (Hamilton) among other findings. So what does this all mean to Hamilton? “As you step back from the numbers you see that height has very little to do with VORP for major league pitchers.” (Hamilton) and “My research suggests that height has very little to do with a pitcher’s value.” (Hamilton) Jeff Zimmerman of Hard Ball Times agrees with the other two gentlemen. While he sees a small difference in the minor leagues, Zimmerman sees no correlation between height and effectiveness of pitchers in the majors, “The difference in ERA begins to lessen among the three levels, but is still noticeable. Once starting pitchers get to Triple-A (4.53 vs 4.50 vs 4.49) and the majors (4.22 vs 4.27 vs 4.21), the differences have all but vanished.” (Zimmerman) Zimmerman uses many data tables to explain his point and they show that the ERA of pitcher’s is essentially on the same plane whether they are short or tall (If you want to view those data tables click HERE).

So in conclusion, should major league clubs draft pitchers based on their size, or is it all a false presumption? Glenn Greenberg seems to think it’s all a false presumption, “The data speak for themselves. Baseball organizations have been scouting, signing, and developing players based on a fallacious assumption. Shorter pitchers are just as effective and durable as taller pitchers. If a player has the ability to get drafted, then he should be drafted in the round that fits his talent.” (Greenberg). Green also says that taller players are often times given more opportunities to start in the majors, while smaller guys get relegated to the bullpen and that contributes to the false assumption that major league starters must be tall (Greenberg). So there you have it, contrary to popular belief the height of a pitcher actually has nothing to do with their effectiveness and durability; sorry for shattering that belief baseball historians.

Greenberg, Glenn P. “SABR.” Does a Pitcher’s Height Matter? 2010 Baseball Research Journal, 10 June 2010. Web. 08 Sept. 2015. <http://sabr.org/research/does-pitcher-s-height-matter>.

Hamilton, Lincoln. “Scouting Science: Does Height Matter for MLB Pitchers?” Scouting Science: Does Height Matter for MLB Pitchers? Project Prospect, 7 Feb. 2008. Web. 08 Sept. 2015. <http:// projectprospect.com/article/2008/02/07/scouting-science-does-height-matter-for-mlb-pitchers>.

Zimmerman, Jeff. “Should Short Pitchers Still Get Short Shrift?” The Hardball Times. The Hardball Times, 6 Oct. 2014. Web. 08 Sept. 2015. <http://www.hardballtimes.com/short-pitchers-still- getting-short-shrift/>.

Pedro Martinez sitting next to Randy Johnson at 2015 HOF induction

What’s up people I’m Eric Campbell from Newtown Square PA but originally from North Philadelphia. I am a freshman and a Communications major and am planning on pursuing the broadcast journalism major within the school. I am taking this course because I needed a Gen Ed class and this one looked pretty chill. I really liked the whole “Loathing science” in the description thought that was funny so I figured why not. I am not planning on being a science major because I despise math and everything about it. All science I have taken to this point has had some kind of math in it and I hated it. I like the whole critical thinking part of science I just really hate the math and formulas and stuff. Anyway I’m really happy to be in this class and it seems like it’ll be a good time. Also I am a huge Doors fan, Jim Morrison is the greatest. You can check out some of their music Here .