Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Accepted: Title
Accepted: Title
Accepted: Title
Title:
Four weeks of Nordic hamstring exercise reduce muscle injury risk factors in young
adults
Running title:
Effect of Nordic hamstring exercise on muscle injury risk factors
D
Laboratory where the research was conducted:
Physiotherapy Laboratory, Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre,
TE
Brazil
Authors:
EP
João Breno de A. R. Alvares 1
Vanessa Bernardes Marques 1
Marco Aurélio Vaz 2
Bruno Manfredini Baroni 1
C
Authors' affiliations:
C
1
Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre, Brazil
2
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
A
Corresponding Author:
Bruno Manfredini Baroni
Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre
Sarmento Leite St., 245
Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Postal code: 90050-170
Phone: +55 (51) 3303-8876
E-mail: bmbaroni@yahoo.com.br
ABSTRACT
The Nordic hamstring exercise (NHE) is a field-based exercise designed for knee-flexor
NHE programmes on other hamstring injury risk factors remain unclear. The purpose of this
study was to investigate the effects of a NHE training programme on multiple hamstring
D
injury risk factors. Twenty physically active young adults were allocated into two equal sized
groups: control group (CG) and training group (TG). The TG was engaged in a 4-week NHE
TE
programme, twice a week, 3 sets of 6-10 repetitions; while CG received no exercise
intervention. The knee flexor and extensor strength was assessed through isokinetic
dynamometry, the biceps femoris long head muscle architecture through ultrasound images,
EP
and the hamstring flexibility through sit-and-reach test. The results showed that CG subjects
had no significant change in any outcome. TG presented higher percent changes than CG for
hamstring isometric peak torque (9%; effect size=0.27), eccentric peak torque (13%; effect
torque ratio (13%; effect size=0.80). The NHE programme led also to increased fascicle
length (22%; effect size=2.77) and reduced pennation angle (-17%; effect size=1.27) in
C
biceps femoris long head of the TG, without significant changes on muscle thickness. In
INTRODUCTION
Hamstring strains are the most common non-contact injuries among professional
athletes of American football (19), soccer (44), rugby (9) and running (8). High incidence
rates have also been reported in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) (12)
and in youth leagues (37). These injuries typically have persistent symptoms and high risk for
recurrence (33). Hamstring strains can result in substantial time lost from sport, leading to
D
reduced conditioning status and sports performance for competitive athletes. At the same
time, these injuries impair the leisure activities (and the occupational activities, in some
TE
cases) for recreational athletes.
The literature regarding the risk factors for hamstring injury is wide, and narrative
reviews (eg, Opar et al [33]) and systematic reviews (eg, Freckleton & Pizzari [20]) have
EP
presented some conflicting conclusions. Most studies agree that previous injury and advanced
age are important non-modifiable risk factor for a hamstring strain (20, 33). The biceps
femoris is the most commonly injured of the hamstring muscles (28), and the primary injury
mechanism is the high-speed running; more specifically during the terminal swing phase,
C
when the hamstrings are required to contract forcefully whilst lengthening to decelerate the
extending knee and flexing hip (23). Therefore, low level of hamstring eccentric strength
C
(34), deficient hamstring-to-quadriceps strength ratio (11), poor flexibility (43), and, more
recently, short muscle fascicle length (40), have been cited as important modifiable risk
A
The Nordic hamstring exercise (NHE) is a simple partner exercise where the subject
starts kneeling and attempts to resist a forward-falling motion using his hamstrings to
maximize loading in the eccentric phase (31). During the NHE execution, a progressive
resistant torque imposed by the trunk position leads to increased neuromuscular hamstring
activation at longer muscle lengths (26, 15), precisely at the most vulnerable injury position.
Mjølsnes et al (31) firstly demonstrated that a NHE programme performed on the training
hamstring strength than a comparable programme based on hamstring curl machine at the
fitness center. Thereafter, studies involving NHE training programmes have demonstrated a
significant hamstring strains incidence reduction in athletes over the last decade (2, 35, 42).
D
strengthening. However, possible effects of NHE programmes on the other risk factors for
TE
Even in the face of promising NHE preventive effect shown by previous studies (2,
35, 42), adoption and implementation of the NHE programmes is still low (4). This fact
highlights the need for a deeper understanding about the NHE effects on the hamstring
EP
structure and function, especially regarding the modifiable injury risk factors. Therefore, the
aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a NHE training programme on multiple risk
A randomized controlled trial was designed to determine the effects of a 4-week NHE
training program on the following knee flexor injury risk factors: hamstring strength;
A
hamstring-to-quadriceps strength ratio; posterior chain flexibility; and biceps femoris long
head (BFLH) fascicle length. Volunteers were randomized in training group (TG) and control
group (CG) through simple draw. Evaluations were performed before and after the NHE
training programme or the control period. The testing and training sessions were conducted at
the XXXX Laboratory of the XXXX University. The reduced staff engaged in this study
made a blind design impossible, since some researchers were involved in both training and
testing sessions.
Subjects
Twenty healthy young adults aged 18-35 years of age were recruited to participate
voluntarily in the study (for participants’ physical characteristics, see Table 1). All
D
participants were undergraduate or graduate students classified as moderately physically
active people according the IPAQ short form (27). All had some experience with recreational
TE
sports, but none of them were currently undertaking any kind of lower limb strength training
at least 6 months prior to their participation in the study nor were engaged in any kind of
months and/or history of previous hamstring strain throughout life; (2) musculoskeletal,
exercise; and (3) users of nutritional supplements or anabolic steroids. Participants were
C
asked to maintain their normal physical activity routine during the study. All subjects were
informed about the purpose, procedures, benefits and risks that might result from this study
C
and gave written informed consent to participate in the study. This study was previously
< < < < < TABLE 1 NEAR HERE > > > > >
Ultrasonography
Subjects rested for 10 minutes before ultrasound images were taken, and they were
previously instructed not to engage in any vigorous physical activity for 48 hours before the
tests. Participants were assessed in the prone position with the hips at neutral position, the
knees fully extended and the muscles relaxed. The feet were kept hanging off the stretcher,
forming a 90° angle with the leg. A Velcro strap was used to keep the subject's medial
malleoli in contact during the evaluation. The scanning site for the BFLH was determined as
the halfway point between the ischial tuberosity and the superior border of the fibular head.
Distances between anatomical landmarks were measured with measuring tape and their
values recorded, ensuring the repositioning of the probe on the same muscle sites at second
D
evaluation. The same experienced researcher made all ultrasound scans.
TE
with a linear-array probe (GE 8L; frequency: 13 MHz; depth: 8 cm; width: 4 cm) was used to
assess muscle architecture parameters of BFLH. The equipment was properly calibrated before
data collection. A layer of water-soluble conductive gel was applied between the ultrasound
EP
probe and the skin. The ultrasound probe was positioned perpendicular to the skin in the
muscle’s longitudinal axis and care was taken to ensure minimal pressure over the skin. If
necessary, slight adjustment in the probe orientation was made by the examiner in order to
optimise the fascicle identification. Three images from each subject were taken and stored for
C
further analysis with the ImageJ software (National Institutes of Health, USA).
Muscle thickness, pennation angle and fascicle length from each image were assessed
C
(Figure 1), and the average value of the three collected images was considered for statistical
analysis (5). Muscle thickness was considered the mean length of three mutually parallel lines
A
perpendicular to the superficial and deep aponeurosis. The most visible fascicle in each image
was used for pennation angle and fascicle length analysis. Pennation angle was calculated as
the angle between the muscle fascicle and the deep aponeurosis. Fascicle length was
measured as the length of the fascicular path between the two aponeuroses. Because fascicle
length was greater than the probe surface, the nonvisible part was estimated through a
< < < < < FIGURE 1 NEAR HERE > > > > >
Flexibility assessment
bilateral warming-up consisting of the following ballistic movements in the standing position:
D
10 reps of hip abduction/adduction, 10 reps of hip flexion/extension, 10 reps of shoulder
TE
weight squats. Next, subjects seated barefoot with the soles of the feet flat against the sit-and-
reach box (Sanny, SP, Brazil) keeping the knees fully extended. Participants should slowly
reach forward with both hands as far as possible, holding this position for approximately 2
EP
seconds (3). Evaluator registered only a correct execution, and volunteers had three valid
attempts. The highest score (measured in centimeters) was considered for statistical analysis.
Isokinetic dynamometry
C
Medical Systems, Shirley, NY, USA) for the assessment of the dominant lower limb
C
before data collection. Tests were conducted by experienced researchers, and the testing
A
protocol was adapted from a reliability study from our group (13). After a warm-up
with a submaximal effort level, subjects performed isometric, concentric and eccentric
maximal tests. Three maximum 5-sec knee flexor isometric contractions were executed at 60°
of knee flexion (0° = full extension) with a 2-min rest between tests. Peak torque values from
each contraction were checked during data collection and an additional test was performed
when torque variation was higher than 10% between the first three tests. Thereafter, three
and a controlled range of motion (20-100° of knee flexion). The test was repeated twice with
a 2-min resting period between attempts. Finally, two attempts of three consecutive maximal
contractions were executed in the eccentric-eccentric mode at 60°/s and a controlled range of
D
The highest knee flexor peak torque values in each contraction type were used for
statistical analysis. Knee extensor peak torques were used to calculate the H:Q conventional
TE
ratio (concentric hamstring peak torque/concentric quadriceps peak torque) and the H:Q
functional ratio (eccentric hamstring peak torque/concentric quadriceps peak torque). Knee
flexor work (area under the torque-angle curve) in concentric and eccentric tests was also
EP
analysed.
encompassing 4 to 10 weeks (7, 14, 26, 31). Our intention was to verify the short-term
week NHE training programme. Evaluations were performed five days before the first
training session and five days after the last training session for TG, while 4-5 weeks were
A
The same warm-up protocol described for the evaluation sessions was performed at
the beginning of each training session. The NHE training periodization is detailed in Table 2.
A 1-minute rest period was respected between sets. Before the first session, participants
received standardized instructions about the NHE execution, attended a demonstration of the
NHE, and performed some repetitions for familiarization. During exercise sessions, subjects
kneeled on the padded mat and had their lower legs stabilized by a researcher. Participants
were encouraged to slowly lowering their torso to the floor-level in a constant-cadence (4 sec
per repetition), sustaining a rigid torso position and only moving the knee joint. Volunteers’
arms were flexed at the elbow joints such that the palms of the hands were facing forward at
the level of the shoulder joints. The participants were allowed to use their arms in the final
stages of the movement to buffer the fall (14). During the return to the NHE starting position,
D
subjects used their upper limbs in order to avoid concentric actions of their hamstrings.
TE
< < < < < TABLE 2 NEAR HERE > > > > >
Statistical analysis
EP
Sample size estimation was a priori completed using G-Power version 3.1.9.2. The
two primary outcomes were considered from studies encompassing healthy young adults:
hamstring eccentric peak torque (data extracted from Delahunt et al [14]) and BFLH fascicle
length (data extracted from Guex et al [22]). Power was set at 80% with an alpha level of
C
Data distribution from each outcome was checked with the Shapiro-Wilk test.
C
Possible baseline differences between groups were assessed through independent t-tests.
Percent changes (∆% = post-training/pre-training-1) were used to verify the training effects,
A
comparing groups through independent t-tests. The significance level was set at 5 %
(α<0.05). The effect size (ES) between pre- and post-training for each group was calculated
using the Cohen’s d formula: ES = (Mpost − Mpre)/SDpooled, where Mpost is the mean post-
training measure, Mpre is the mean pre-training measure, and SDpooled is the pooled standard
deviation of the pre- and post-measurements. Training effect sizes were considered as
“trivial” (ES<0.2), “small” (ES>0.2), “moderate” (ES>0.6), “large” (ES>1.2) or “very large”
(ES>2.0) (25).
RESULTS
At baseline evaluation, groups were similar in gender distribution, age, body mass and
height (Table 1; p>0.05 for all variables), and presented similar values in all outcomes
D
assessed in this study (Table 3; p>0.05 for all).
TE
< < < < < TABLE 3 NEAR HERE > > > >
torque, eccentric peak torque, eccentric work, and H:Q functional ratio (Figure 2). No
EP
between-group differences were found on the hamstring concentric peak torque, concentric
work, and H:Q conventional ratio (Figure 2). CG presented only trivial effect in all
dynamometric outcomes (Table 3). TG had a small effect for isometric peak torque,
C
concentric peak torque, concentric work, and H:Q conventional ratio; while a moderate effect
was found for eccentric peak torque, eccentric work and H:Q functional ratio (Table 3).
C
BFLH muscle thickness did not change between evaluations for both groups (Table 3).
A greater percent decrease on pennation angle was accompanied by a higher percent increase
A
on fascicle length of TG compared to CG (Figure 3). The non-trained subjects presented only
trivial effects on BFLH muscle architecture parameters (Table 3). TG subjects had a trivial
effect on BFLH muscle thickness, a large effect on pennation angle, and a very large effect on
No significant differences were found for the flexibility changes between CG (-4.60 ±
6.81%; ES = 0.12) and TG (4.04 ± 15.33%; ES = 0.01) for the two evaluations (Table 3).
Figure 4 shows the individual responses of the TG on the primary outcomes of this
study (ie, hamstring eccentric peak torque and fascicle length), considered important risk
factors for hamstring injury (41). Before the NHE programme (white circles), all volunteers
were at a foursquare with higher risk of muscle injury (ie, weak muscle with short fascicles).
After 4-weeks (black circles), only one remained at the higher risk foursquare. Some
volunteers had no eccentric strength gain, but all subjects trained with NHE had increased
D
fascicle length.
TE
< < < < < FIGURE 2 NEAR HERE > > > > >
< < < < < FIGURE 3 NEAR HERE > > > > >
EP
< < < < < FIGURE 4 NEAR HERE > > > > >
DISCUSSION
C
This is the first study to demonstrate positive effects of a short-term NHE training
programme on multiple risk factors for hamstring injury. The major findings of this study
C
were that a 4-week NHE programme led to significant improvements in the hamstring
eccentric strength (peak torque and total work) and improvements in the H:Q functional ratio
A
compared to a CG, as well as decreased the BFLH pennation angle and increased the BFLH
fascicle length, with no effect on lower-limb posterior chain flexibility. These findings
provide support to some of the mechanisms that might provide a preventive effect of the
To the best of our knowledge, this seems to be the first study to assess the effect of a
NHE programme on the three different types of muscle contraction. In view of the specificity
effect of eccentric training, expressive increases were already expected in eccentric compared
during eccentric actions, isometric tests may also provide relevant information on the injury
risk (38). In this sense, the isometric peak torque results from our study are consistent with
the 7% increment reported by Mjølsnes et al (31), and demonstrated the transfer effect of this
training programme to a type of muscle action different from that emphasized by the NHE. In
D
contrast, the insignificant changes verified on concentric strength (peak torque and work)
suggest that complementary exercises should be used concurrently to the NHE programme in
TE
order to promote hamstring concentric strength gain.
The NHE programme used in this study led to similar changes in eccentric peak
torque (13%) than reported after 6-10 weeks of NHE in physically active adults (15%) (14)
EP
and professional athletes (11%) (31). Interestingly, a previous study involving the same 4-
week intervention period used in our training programme documented the greatest increase
ever (21%) on eccentric peak torque (26). Therefore, our findings further support the short-
term gain in eccentric peak torque promoted by the NHE, providing a plausible explanation
C
to the protective effect against hamstring injury evidenced by previous studies with
The H:Q conventional ratio is the most common muscular balance measurement. The
cut point of 0.6 was initially proposed by Heiser et al (24) and has been widely used for
A
identifying muscle imbalance and injury risk. However, the H:Q conventional ratio has been
criticized by some experts due to the fact that it considers only the concentric strength of
thigh muscles. Therefore, the H:Q functional ratio emerged as a more useful outcome by
considering the hamstring eccentric strength, which is the muscle action usually involved in
hamstring strains. Although there is no consensus in the literature, values of 0.8 (11) and 1.0
(1) have been used as cut points for identifying muscle imbalance through the H:Q functional
ratio. The NHE programme implemented in our study promoted had no significant changes
on the H:Q conventional ratio, but significantly increased the H:Q functional ratio (from 0.75
to 0.83). It means the 4-week training programme improved the participants’ muscle balance,
theoretically pushing them away from the zone of greatest injury risk (ie, H:Q functional ratio
below 0.8).
As far as we know, no other study evaluated the effect of the NHE on isokinetic work.
D
This isokinetic parameter is calculated as the area under the torque-angle curve, and therefore
characterizes muscle performance over the entire range of motion (30). The increased
TE
eccentric work suggests that the NHE training not only improved the maximum torque, but it
also shifted the torque-angle curve upwards. To date, there is no cohort study assessing the
influence of hamstring eccentric work on injury risks for this muscle group. However, the
EP
persistent deficit on hamstring work at the injured compared to the uninjured limb when
athletes return to sport has been related with a high level of re-injury (38). In fact, it seems
reasonable that a muscle with higher strength production capacity throughout the entire range
of motion would be more protected from a muscle strain, so further attention should be given
C
Similar to our study, Mjølsnes et al (31) also found no effect of the NHE programme
C
on the hamstring flexibility. In contrast, an average gain of 7° and 13° on passive knee range
of motion was observed following eccentric training programmes using exercises at the leg
A
curl machine (36) and with elastic bands (32), respectively. These findings may suggest a real
exercises should be added to the prevention programs based on NHE when flexibility
improvement is a goal. We should highlight the sit-and-reach test score is an indirect measure
of hamstring extensibility because this test involves the whole body motion. Therefore, the
validity of sit-and-reach test may also be influenced by anthropometric and joint flexibility
factors in the shoulders, spine, and lower and upper extremities (3). Moreover, while ham-
string flexibility of less than 90° in a passive straight-leg raise was correlated significantly
with future hamstring injury (43), no association has been found between sit-and-reach test
performance and the risk of hamstring strain (34). In view of the abovementioned factors, our
choice by the sit-and-reach test may be considered a limitation of this study, even with the
D
Ultrasound is a valid and reliable tool currently used to examine in vivo hamstring
architecture (7, 22, 36, 40, 41). The unchanged BFLH muscle thickness after the NHE
TE
programme in this and previous studies (22, 41) suggests that strength enhancement at the TG
cannot be attributed to hypertrophic response to the NHE program. Our study did not assess
neural adaptations to the NHE program, but expressive neuromuscular enhancements were
EP
already reported with eccentric training (6). In fact, the NHE presents a growing resistant
torque, leading to the highest neuromuscular activation from the middle to the terminal
phases of the movement (26, 15). Therefore, a great engagement occurs in the most extended
hamstring position, possibly increasing the activation capacity precisely at the most common
C
The increased fascicle length as a response to eccentric training has been reported by a
C
series of studies in knee extensors (eg, Baroni et al [5]) and plantar flexors (eg, Duclay et al
[16]). However, although short BFLH fascicles increase the risk of hamstring injury (40), few
A
studies have evaluated the effects of eccentric training on the hamstrings architecture.
Previous findings involving training programmes using the leg curl machine (36), the
isokinetic dynamometer (41) and, recently, the NHE (7) have demonstrated that eccentric
exercise is able to increase the BFLH fascicle length in about 2 cm, which is further supported
by our results. Interestingly, the concentric training seems to promote an opposite response
on BFLH, leading to shorter fascicles (41), while the hamstring stretching training has
presented conflicting findings on fascicular adaptation (17, 21). Therefore, the eccentric
overload seems to be the most efficient way to increase fascicle length in humans.
(40), an 18-year old athlete with a 10 cm BFLH fascicle has the same probability to suffer a
hamstring injury than a 32-year old athlete with 12 cm BFLH (see figure 2 in Timmins et al
[40]). Additionally, in a scenario where a previously injured player enhanced his BFLH
D
fascicle from 10 cm to 12 cm, his probability of a re-injury almost equals to when he had a 10
cm fascicle length and no history of hamstring injury (see figure 1 in Timmins et al [40]). In
TE
other words, the increased fascicle length helps to counteract the influence of non-modifiable
hamstring injury risk factors, such age and previous injury. These rationales provide strong
arguments in favour of introducing the BFLH ultrasonography to the screening tests for
EP
muscle injuries in sports, and thus providing additional attention through eccentric exercise in
those players with short fascicles. Evidence in animal model has confirmed that increased
against muscle injury (40), longer fascicles allow faster fiber shortening and have a positive
Our findings demonstrated that a 4-week NHE training programme had higher effect
in BFLH fascicle length than in eccentric peak torque (the two primary outcomes of this
A
study). In addition, figure 4 denotes some subjects as low-responders for eccentric strength
gain with the NHE training, while all volunteers presented increased muscle fascicle length.
There is no scientific support to state which of these two factors is the most relevant for the
hamstring injury prevention. But our findings suggest muscle architecture as the main short-
term response to the NHE training, and perhaps the protective effect of this type of
intervention should be more attributed to the muscle structure adaptations than to muscular
strengthening. Cohort studies simultaneosly assessing the hamstring injury rate and the NHE
soccer teams is low (4) even in face of the efficiency of this training program on injury
prevention (2, 35, 42). This poor compliance of elite soccer teams may be one of the reasons
for the hamstring injuries increase by 4% annually between 2001 and 2014 in this population
D
(18). We hope that the findings of the present study contribute for a deeper understanding
about the mechanisms responsible for the preventive effect of the NHE against hamstring
TE
strains, and encourage members of the medical staff to use this kind of exercise on the
if professional athletes have similar responses to the NHE programme compared to the
EP
healthy young adults assessed in this study, as well as the training responses of each lower
limb in subjects with bilateral strength asymmetry (eg, due to a previous injury). Moreover,
the optimal NHE training periodization for athletes needs to be further investigated.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
C
Hamstring strain has multiple modifiable risk factors, such as low level of hamstring
eccentric strength, deficient hamstring-to-quadriceps strength ratio, poor flexibility, and short
C
muscle fascicle length. Therefore, prevention of hamstring strain depends both on the
counteract them. Our findings demonstrated that a short training period (4 weeks; 8 training
sessions) was able to counteract multiple hamstring injury risk factors, which encourage
members of the coaching staff to use the NHE on the prevention programmes of their
REFERENCES
26(2): 231-7.
strains in elite soccer: an intervention study. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2008; 18(1): 40-
D
48.
TE
criterion-related validity of the sit and reach test and toe touch test for estimating
hamstring flexibility in recreationally active young adults. Phys Ther Sport. 2012; 13(4):
219-26.
EP
4. Bahr R, Thorborg K, Ekstrand J. Evidence-based hamstring injury prevention is not
MA. Muscle architecture adaptations to knee extensor eccentric training: rectus femoris
6. Baroni BM, Rodrigues R, Franke RA, Geremia JM, Rassier DE, Vaz MA. Time course
2013a; 34(10):904-11.
7. Bourne MN, Duhig SJ, Timmins RG, Williams MD, Opar DA, Al Najjar A, Kerr GK,
Shield AJ. Impact of the Nordic hamstring and hip extension exercises on hamstring
architecture and morphology: implications for injury prevention. Br J Sports Med. 2016.
distribution and risk factors. Aust J Sci Med Sport. 1996 Sep;28(3):69-75.
9. Brooks JH, Fuller CW, Kemp SP, Reddin DB. Incidence, risk, and prevention of
Aug;34(8):1297-306.
10. Butterfield TA, Leonard TR, Herzog W. Differential serial sarcomere number
D
adaptations in knee extensor muscles of rats is contraction type dependent. J Appl
TE
11. Croisier JL, Ganteaume S, Binet J, Genty M, Ferret JM. Strength imbalances and
Nov;43(11):2671-9.
13. de Araujo Ribeiro Alvares JB, Rodrigues R, de Azevedo Franke R et al. Inter-machine
C
reliability of the Biodex and Cybex isokinetic dynamometers for knee flexor/extensor
isometric, concentric and eccentric tests. Phys Ther Sport. 2015; 16(1):59-65.
C
alters knee joint kinematics and hamstring activation patterns in young men. Eur J Appl
A
16. Duclay J, Martin A, Duclay A, Cometti G, Pousson M. Behavior of fascicles and the
17. e Lima KM, Carneiro SP, Alves Dde S, Peixinho CC, de Oliveira LF. Assessment of
muscle architecture of the biceps femoris and vastus lateralis by ultrasound after a
in men's professional football, since 2001: a 13-year longitudinal analysis of the UEFA
D
19. Feeley BT, Kennelly S, Barnes RP, Muller MS, Kelly BT, Rodeo SA, Warren RF.
Epidemiology of National Football League training camp injuries from 1998 to 2007.
TE
Am J Sports Med. 2008 Aug;36(8):1597-603.
20. Freckleton G, Pizzari T. Risk factors for hamstring muscle strain injury in sport: a
22. Guex K, Degache F, Morisod C, Sailly M, Millet GP. Hamstring architectural and
functional adaptations following long vs. short muscle length eccentric training. Front
C
23. Heiderscheit BC, Sherry MA, Silder A, Chumanov ES, Thelen DG. Hamstring strain
C
24. Heiser TM, Weber J, Sullivan G, Clare P, Jacobs RR. Prophylaxis and management of
12(5):368-70.
25. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive statistics for studies
in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009; 41(1):3-13.
26. Iga J, Fruer CS, Deighan M, Croix MDS, James, DVB. “Nordic” hamstring exercise –
engagement characteristics and training responses. Int J Sports Med. 2012; 33: 1000-
1004.
protocol.
28. Koulouris G, Connell D. Evaluation of the hamstring muscle complex following acute
D
injury. Skeletal Radiol. 2003;32(10):582-9.
29. Kumagai K, Abe T, Brechue WF, Ryushi T, Takano S, Mizuno M. Sprint performance
TE
is related to muscle fascicle length in male 100-m sprinters. J Appl Physiol (1985).
2000; 88(3):811-6.
32. Nelson RT, Bandy WD. Eccentric training and static stretching improve hamstring
C
33. Opar DA, Williams MD, Shield AJ. Hamstring strain injuries: factors that lead to injury
A
1997; 25(1):81-5.
36. Potier TG, Alexander CM, Seynnes OR. Effects of eccentric strength training on biceps
femoris muscle architecture and knee joint range of movement. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2009; 105:939-944.
D
37. Renshaw A, Goodwin PC. Injury incidence in a Premier League youth soccer academy
using the consensus statement: a prospective cohort study. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med.
TE
2016 Oct 26;2(1):e000132. eCollection 2016.
38. Sanfilippo JL, Silder A, Sherry MA, Tuite MJ, Heiderscheit BC. Hamstring strength and
morphology progression after return to sport from injury. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;
EP
45(3):448-54.
39. Schache AG, Crossley KM, Macindoe IG, Fahrner BB, Pandy MG. Can a clinical test of
hamstring strength identify football players at risk of hamstring strain? Knee Surg
40. Timmins RG, Bourne MN, Shield AJ, Williams MD, Lorenzen C, Opar DA. Short
biceps femoris fascicles and eccentric knee flexor weakness increase the risk of
C
hamstring injury in elite football (soccer): a prospective cohort study. Br J Sports Med.
ahead of print]
41. Timmins RG, Ruddy JD, Presland J et al. Architectural changes of the biceps femoris
long head after concentric or eccentric training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016; 48(3):499-
508.
42. van der Horst N, Smits DW, Petersen J, Goedhart EA, Backx FJ. The preventive effect
risk factor for developing muscle injuries in male professional soccer players. A
D
44. Woods C, Hawkins R, Hulse M, Hodson A. The Football Association Medical Research
TE
Br J Sports Med. 2002; 36(6):436-41.
FIGURE LEGENDS
EP
FIGURE 1. Biceps femoris ultrasound assessment in a volunteer (above); and a typical
fascicle length.
C
C
FIGURE 3. Percentage differences (mean ± standard error) in biceps femoris long head
length; p-values are presented when significant difference was observed between groups.
FIGURE 4. Individual responses of the training group for the two primary outcomes of the
study: hamstring eccentric peak torque and biceps femoris long head (BFLH) fascicle length.
TABLES
D
TE
TABLE 1. Characteristics of subjects (mean ± standard deviation).
1 2 3 6 18
2 2 3 7 21
D
3 2 3 8 24
4 2 3 10 30
TE
EP
C
C
A
TABLE 3. Risk factors for hamstring injury at pre- and post-training evaluations in control and training groups (mean ± standard deviation).
Isometric peak torque (Nm) 88.6 ± 36.6 86.8 ± 36.5 0.05 79.1 ± 26.1 86.7 ± 33.4 0.27 *
D
Concentric peak torque (Nm) 78.5 ± 28.3 80.9 ± 28.1 0.09 70.8 ± 24.5 79.5 ± 34.7 0.31 *
TE
Eccentric peak torque (Nm) 123.3 ± 30.3 124.8 ± 30.3 0.05 110.9 ± 21.2 126.9 ± 33.4 0.60 #
Muscle
Concentric work (J) 230.6 ± 80.2 244.4 ± 77.0 0.19 219.4 ± 88.3 246.3 ± 110.1 0.28 *
Strength
Eccentric work (J) 259.5 ± 82.9 262.1 ± 70.1 0.04 218.3 ± 34.2 259.1 ± 62.1 0.86 #
EP
H:Q conventional ratio 0.48 ± 0.06 0.49 ± 0.07 0.06 0.46 ± 0.06 0.50 ± 0.09 0.55 *
H:Q functional ratio 0.77 ± 0.08 0.78 ± 0.06 0.15 0.75 ± 0.12 0.83 ± 0.09 0.80 #
Muscle thickness (cm) 2.05 ± 0.39 2.07 ± 0.42 0.05 2.02 ± 0.36 2.04 ± 0.30 0.06
Muscle
Pennation angle (o) 12.77 ± 2.05 12.64 ± 2.08 0.07 14.00 ± 2.06 11.64 ± 1.85 1.27 &
Architecture
Fascicle length (cm)
C
9.40 ± 1.78 9.59 ± 2.03 0.10 8.36 ± 0.63 10.18 ± 0.75 2.77 §
C
Flexibility Sit-and-reach test (cm) 26.7 ± 9.4 25.6 ± 10.0 0.12 25.0 ± 8.5 25.1 ± 7.1 0.01
* small effect size; # moderate effect size; & large effect size; § very large effect size.
A