Hamstrings hypertrophy is specific to the training exercise: Nordic hamstring versus hip extension
The upshot
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
- 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%)
- NHT preferentially hypertrophied non-hip-extending knee flexors (biceps femoris short head, sartorius) at approximately twice the rate of LSET
- LSET increased BFlh aponeurosis area by +9% versus only +3% after NHT; NHT did not differ from the control group for aponeurosis changes
- Eccentric knee flexion strength improved with both LSET (+17%) and NHT (+11%), but only LSET differed significantly from the no-training control group
- 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 paperClinically assessing this area? See the hip & groin special tests.
More Hip & Groin studies
- An examination of imaging findings in patients with clinically diagnosed gluteal tendinopathyPrimary studySummary2025
- Reconsidering exercise selection with EMG: poor agreement between ranking hip exercises with EMGPrimary studySummary2025
- The influence of hip extensor and lumbar spine extensor strength on lumbar spine loadingPrimary studySummary2022
- Relationship between hip and groin pain and hip range of motion in amateur soccer and Australian rules football playersPrimary studySummary2024
- Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome in middle-aged individuals is strongly associated with hip OAPrimary studySummary2024
- Hip adduction and abduction strength in different test positions and their relationshipPrimary studySummary2024