Why the study?
Research typically evaluates eccentric-only Nordic hamstring exercise (NHE), whereas athletes commonly perform it eccentrically-concentrically, and alternative force-assessment methods about the knee joint are needed.
Does combined eccentric-concentric NHE differ from eccentric-only NHE in peak knee flexor force in elite athletes?
Does combined eccentric-concentric NHE differ from eccentric-only NHE in peak knee flexor force in elite athletes?
ECNHE reaches peak knee flexor force with 37% less forward movement compared to ENHE, suggesting it may be a useful alternative during hamstring injury rehabilitation.
Sport-specific eccentric-concentric NHE may differ from eccentric-only protocols; leaves open optimal dosing and assessment for injury prevention.
In many sports, the hamstring strain injury is a common injury. There is evidence that the Nordic hamstring exercise (NHE), a knee flexor exercise, can reduce hamstring injury risk in athletes. In research on hamstring injury prevention, eccentric-only NHE is typically performed, whereas in sports, it is relatively common for athletes to perform NHE eccentrically-concentrically. Further, NHE strength is generally assessed by measuring knee flexor force through an ankle brace, attached atop of a load cell. An alternative method might be to assess knee flexor force about the knee joint using a force plate. The aim of the study was to investigate differences in peak knee flexor force between eccentric-only and combined eccentric-concentric NHE. The purpose was also to determine the correlation between hamstring force measured at the ankle using a load cell (current gold standard) and force assessed about the knee joint using a force plate during NHE. Fifteen junior and senior elite soccer and track and field athletes (3 women and 12 men aged 17–27 years) performed eccentric NHE (ENHE) in which they leaned forward as far as possible until breakpoint and eccentric-concentric NHE (ECNHE) where they returned to the starting position. A linear encoder measured the position at which peak force occurred during the NHEs. Force assessed at the ankle differed significantly (678 vs. 600 N, p < 0.05), whereas force about the knee joint did not (640 vs. 607 N, p > 0.05) between ENHE and ECNHE (12 and 5% difference, respectively). The forward distance achieved by the participants in cm at breakpoint for ENHE was 37% higher than at the coupling phase for ECNHE (74 vs. 54 cm, p < 0.001). Very strong significant (p < 0.01) correlations were noted between peak force assessed at the ankle and about the knee joint for ENHE and ECNHE, r = 0.96 and r = 0.99, respectively. Our results suggest that ECNHE, where peak knee flexor force was reached with 37% less forward movement, may complement ENHE, i.e., during hamstring injury rehabilitation, where a position of great knee extension may not be well tolerated by the athlete. Further, assessing knee flexor force about the knee joint using a force plate may provide an alternative to measuring force at the ankle using a load cell when testing NHE strength.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Augustsson et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: