4.6 Article

Impact of the Nordic hamstring and hip extension exercises on hamstring architecture and morphology: implications for injury prevention

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
Volume 51, Issue 5, Pages 469-477

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096130

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Queensland Academy of Sport's Centre of Excellence for Applied Sports Science Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The architectural and morphological adaptations of the hamstrings in response to training with different exercises have not been explored. Purpose To evaluate changes in biceps femoris long head (BFLH) fascicle length and hamstring muscle size following 10-weeks of Nordic hamstring exercise (NHE) or hip extension (HE) training. Methods 30 recreationally active male athletes (age, 22.0 +/- 3.6 years; height, 180.4 +/- 7 cm; weight, 80.8 +/- 11.1 kg) were allocated to 1 of 3 groups: (1) HE training (n= 10), NHE training (n= 10), or no training (control, CON) (n= 10). BFLH fascicle length was assessed before, during (Week 5) and after the intervention with a two-dimensional ultrasound. Hamstring muscle size was determined before and after training via MRI. Results Compared with baseline, BFLH fascicles were lengthened in the NHE and HE groups at mid-training (d= 1.12-1.39, p < 0.001) and post-training (d= 1.77-2.17, p < 0.001) and these changes did not differ significantly between exercises (d= 0.49-0.80, p=0.279-0.976). BFLH volume increased more for the HE than the NHE (d= 1.03, p=0.037) and CON (d=2.24, p < 0.001) groups. Compared with the CON group, both exercises induced significant increases in semitendinosus volume (d=2.16-2.50, <= 0.002) and these increases were not significantly different (d= 0.69, p=0.239). Conclusion NHE and HE training both stimulate significant increases in BFLH fascicle length; however, HE training may be more effective for promoting hypertrophy in the BFLH.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available