PhysioHub

Hamstrings hypertrophy is specific to the training exercise: Nordic hamstring versus hip extension

Our take

Does lengthened-state eccentric training (hip-flexed leg curl) build more hamstring muscle than Nordic hamstring training?

Lengthened-state eccentric training (LSET) produced 18% total hamstring volume growth versus 11% for Nordic hamstring training (NHT) over 12 weeks, with particularly large differences in the biceps femoris long head, the muscle most prone to strain injury. The two exercises caused distinctly different patterns of hypertrophy driven by which muscles are lengthened during each exercise.

SupportsRead paper
Primary study42 ParticipantsModerate evidence

Key points

  1. LSET grew total hamstring volume more than NHT (+18% vs +11%), with the biceps femoris long head growing 3.5 times more after LSET (+19%) than NHT (+5%)
  2. NHT preferentially hypertrophied non-hip-extending knee flexors (biceps femoris short head, sartorius) at approximately twice the rate of LSET
  3. LSET increased BFlh aponeurosis area by +9% versus only +3% after NHT; NHT did not differ from the control group for aponeurosis changes
  4. Eccentric knee flexion strength improved with both LSET (+17%) and NHT (+11%), but only LSET differed significantly from the no-training control group
  5. The pattern of hypertrophy matched the functional role of each muscle: muscles lengthened more during training grew more, regardless of which exercise was used

How it was conducted

Design
Parallel-group randomised controlled trial with a no-training control arm, 12 weeks
Participants
42 healthy young males (mean age 24-27 yr across groups), no lower-limb injury or systematic training in the previous 18 months
Groups
LSET: hip-flexed seated leg curl eccentric training (n=14); NHT: Nordic hamstring training (n=14); CON: habitual activity control (n=14)
Training dose
34 supervised sessions over 12 weeks; eccentric sets and reps equated between training groups
Primary outcomes
MRI-measured muscle volume of 7 individual knee flexors and BFlh aponeurosis area; maximum eccentric, isometric, and concentric knee flexion torque
Analysis
Repeated-measures ANCOVA with pre-training values as covariates; LSD post-hoc tests

What they found

  • Total hamstring volume: LSET +18%, NHT +11%, CON no change; LSET > NHT > CON (all P < 0.001)
  • BFlh volume: LSET +19%, NHT +5%; LSET greater than NHT and CON (both P < 0.001); NHT did not differ from CON (P = 0.053-0.949)
  • SM volume: LSET +14%, NHT no significant change (P=0.423); LSET > NHT (P < 0.001)
  • BFsh volume: NHT +22%, LSET +6%; NHT greater than LSET (P = 0.001-0.010)
  • KF-and-HE group (BFlh+ST+SM): LSET 2.2-fold greater increase than NHT (P < 0.001)
  • KF-not-HE group (BFsh+SAR+GRA+POP): NHT 1.9-fold greater increase than LSET (P <= 0.001)
  • BFlh aponeurosis area: LSET +9%, NHT +3%, CON +2%; LSET greater than NHT (P=0.001) and CON (P < 0.001); NHT did not differ from CON (P=0.292)
  • BFlh aponeurosis maximum width: LSET +8% (P < 0.001); NHT and CON showed no within-group change; LSET greater than NHT (P=0.031) and CON (P=0.038)
  • Maximum eccentric torque: LSET +17%, NHT +11%, CON +4%; LSET greater than CON (P=0.009); LSET vs NHT not significant (P=0.237); NHT vs CON not significant (P=0.104)
  • Maximum isometric torque: LSET +27%, NHT +25%, CON +14%; both training groups greater than CON (P=0.001-0.002); LSET vs NHT not significant (P=0.697)

Limitations

  • The two regimes differed on multiple variables simultaneously (hip angle, bilateral vs unilateral eccentrics, loading mechanism, concentric component), so no single variable can be isolated as the cause of the differential hypertrophy
  • Sample was restricted to healthy young males with no prior systematic training, limiting generalisability to females, older adults, or trained athletes
  • Strength measurements did not extend to long muscle lengths (knee angles beyond 95 degrees) where LSET trains, leaving potential strength benefits at those angles unmeasured
  • No prospective injury data were collected, so whether the greater BFlh and aponeurosis hypertrophy after LSET translates into fewer hamstring strain injuries remains unknown

Why it matters

For patients
Athletes or active people wanting to reduce hamstring strain injury risk may get greater protective muscle adaptations from hip-flexed eccentric leg curls than from Nordic curls alone.
For clinicians
For rehabilitation or injury prevention targeting the biceps femoris long head specifically, LSET (seated leg curl with accentuated hip flexion at 120 degrees) produces substantially more hypertrophy of that muscle and its aponeurosis than Nordic hamstring training over 12 weeks.
For readers
Exercise selection within the same joint action profoundly shapes which muscles grow, and training hamstrings at longer lengths (hip flexed) preferentially hypertrophies the injury-prone biceps femoris long head.

Source

doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000003490

Read the original paper
Clinically assessing this area? See the hip & groin special tests.

More Hip & Groin studies