Content uploaded by Benjamin G Serpell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Benjamin G Serpell on Dec 30, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Accepted Article
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not
been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may
lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as
doi: 10.1111/sms.13437
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
MISS CLAIRE KENNEALLY-DABROWSKI (Orcid ID : 0000-0001-5433-5082)
DR WAYNE SPRATFORD (Orcid ID : 0000-0002-6207-8829)
Article type : Review Article
Late swing or early stance? A narrative review of hamstring injury mechanisms during high-
speed running
Running head: Hamstring injury mechanisms during running
Authors: Claire J. B. Kenneally-Dabrowski1,2, Nicholas A.T. Brown2,3, Adrian K.M. Lai4, Diana
Perriman1,5,6, Wayne Spratford3,7, Benjamin G. Serpell3,8
1 ANU Medical School, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
2 Australian Institute of Sport, Canberra, ACT, Australia
3 University of Canberra Research Institute for Sport and Exercise, Faculty of Health, University of
Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia
4 Department of Biomedical Physiology and Kinesiology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC,
Canada
5 Trauma and Orthopaedic Research Unit, Canberra Hospital, Canberra, ACT, Australia
6 Discipline of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia
7 Discipline of Sport and Exercise Science, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra,
ACT, Australia
8 Brumbies Rugby, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Corresponding author: Claire Kenneally-Dabrowski, Australian Institute of Sport, Movement
Science Department, Leverrier St, Bruce, ACT, Australia. Tel: +614 3333 1214, Fax: +612 6214
1593, E-mail: claire.kenneally-dabrowski@ausport.gov.au
Abstract
Hamstring injuries are highly prevalent in many running-based sports, and predominantly affect the
long head of biceps femoris. Re-injury rates are also high and together lead to considerable time lost
from sport. However, the mechanisms for hamstring injury during high-speed running are still not
fully understood. Therefore, the aim of this review was to summarise the current literature describing
hamstring musculotendon mechanics and electromyography activity during high-speed running, and
how they may relate to injury risk. The large eccentric contraction, characterised by peak
musculotendon strain and negative work during late swing phase is widely suggested to be potentially
injurious. However, it is also argued that high hamstring loads resulting from large joint torques and
ground reaction forces during early stance may cause injury. While direct evidence is still lacking, the
majority of the literature suggests that the most likely timing of injury is the late swing phase. Future
research should aim to prospectively examine the relationship between hamstring musculotendon
dynamics and hamstring injury.
Keywords
Athletic injuries, Musculotendon function, Literature review, Biceps Femoris long head,
Musculoskeletal modelling
Introduction
Hamstring injuries are one of the most common and debilitating injuries in many running-based
sports, including the football codes and track sprinting.1-3 High rates of initial injury coupled with
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
frequent recurrence1-4 lead to significant periods of convalescence.2, 4 The resulting player
unavailability in team sports negatively impacts team performance,5 while individual performance
may also remain diminished upon return to play.6
It is well established that hamstring injuries most commonly occur during high-speed running.2, 7, 8
While the hamstring complex is comprised of four muscles (biceps femoris long head, biceps femoris
short head, semimembranosus and semitendinosus), injuries primarily affect the biceps femoris long
head muscle (BFlh) at the proximal musculotendinous junction.9, 10 In professional soccer, 57-72% of
all hamstring injuries occurred during high-speed running, and in nearly all of these injuries (up to
94%) the primary injury site was the BFlh.2, 11, 12 Therefore, the focus of the majority of research, and
by extension, this review, is the BFlh musculotendon complex. The BFlh is positioned laterally within
the hamstring complex and is bi-articular, crossing both the hip and knee joints and therefore
contributing to hip extension and knee flexion.13
Several studies have attempted to determine the mechanisms of BFlh injury during running through
anatomical studies,13-16 or kinematic and kinetic analyses of running.17-19 However, although it is the
subject of significant speculation, the exact mechanisms for hamstring injury during high-speed
running have still not yet been definitively established. It has been suggested that anatomical risk
factors for BFlh injury may include the morphology of the aponeuroses15, 16 as well as it’s synergistic
relationship and common proximal tendon with semitendinosus.13 However, it is potentially the
function of the hamstring musculotendon complex during high-speed running that may provide the
most insight into injury mechanisms. Advances in musculoskeletal modelling techniques over the past
decade have facilitated several investigations into hamstring musculotendon mechanics during high-
speed running. These modelling studies have indicated that the mechanism of injury may relate to the
timing of peaks in musculotendon variables such as length and force.17, 19-24 These peaks occur in
distinct phases of the gait cycle in response to the task demands. Two distinct arguments have been
proposed for the timing of injury, and pose the question: Do hamstring injuries occur during late
swing or early stance?
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Therefore, the objective of this review is to provide an overview of:
1. Musculotendon mechanics and muscle excitation of the BFlh during high-speed running.
2. How these musculotendon mechanics and muscle excitation may relate to the potential for
injury during the late swing or early stance phases of high-speed running.
Literature search
The databases Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed were searched using combinations of the
following terms, hamstring, inj*, sprint*, run*, EMG, activ*, kinematic*, kinetic*. The reference lists
of articles retrieved were also manually searched for any relevant articles that were not identified
electronically.
Hip and knee kinematics during high-speed running
In this paper, the gait cycle will be discussed starting at toe off, as this approach is more conducive to
the discussion of hamstring function at the late swing and early stance phases where the interest in
hamstring injury risk is greatest. Hip and knee angles are discussed as relative angles between the
trunk and thigh, and thigh and shank, respectively. Further, all kinematic and kinetic data presented in
the following two sections of this review refer to overground sprinting data only.
As depicted in Figure 1, each stride commences with early swing phase. Early swing phase begins at
toe-off after which the hip transitions from maximum extension (approximately 195 degrees) into
flexion, and the knee flexes.25, 26 At the transition to mid swing, the knee reaches peak flexion
(approximately 40 degrees) and the hip continues to flex,25, 26 before beginning to extend rapidly,
reaching a peak extension velocity of 1195 degrees/second.25 Late swing commences as the hip
reaches peak flexion (approximately 100 degrees) and then starts to extend in preparation for foot
strike.25, 26 The knee extends until the shank is decelerated, at which point the knee starts to flex just
prior to foot strike. Early stance begins at foot strike, where the hip extends while the knee flexes. Mid
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
stance defines the transition from knee flexion to extension, and the hip continues to extend.
Following this point, late stance commences and the knee continues to extend until just prior to toe
off, where it starts to flex. The hip continues to extend throughout late stance, nearing peak hip
extension at toe off.25, 27
Hip and knee kinetics during high-speed running
Throughout the first half of swing phase, the hip produces a large flexion moment, reported to peak at
4.3 N·m·kg, while the knee produces an extension moment of smaller magnitude (1.0 N·m·kg).17, 28 In
the second half of swing, the hip produces a large extension moment (4.2 N·m·kg) while the knee
displays a smaller flexion moment (1.8 N·m·kg).17, 28 During swing, net joint torques are primarily a
result of muscle torques (generated from muscle contractions) and motion-dependent torque (arising
from the mechanical interaction of segments eg. the angular acceleration of the shank).29, 30
In contrast, during stance, the net joint torques primarily result from muscle torques and external
forces (resulting from ground reaction forces).29, 30 During the beginning of the stance phase, the hip
exhibits extensor dominance, reaching peak extension torque at approximately 4.1 N·m·kg, before
changing to a flexion moment towards the latter half of stance.17, 31, 32 The reported knee moments
during stance vary much more between studies, which may be attributed to different filtering
techniques utilised.33, 34 Schache et al.17, 28 described an extension moment for the first half of stance,
with a peak torque of 3.6 N·m·kg, before a flexion moment is produced towards late stance. However,
other studies have reported a much more variable knee moment, sometimes switching several times
from extension to flexion dominance throughout stance, although some researchers have argued that
this may be an artefact of data processing.31
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Muscle excitation of the BFlh during high-speed running
Surface electromyography (EMG) has been used to define EMG amplitude (ie. muscle excitation)35 of
the lateral hamstrings (BFlh and biceps femoris short head) during both overground36-38 and
treadmill19, 39 high-speed running. Muscle excitation is evident throughout the whole gait cycle;
however, muscle excitation is low through the early and middle phases of swing.19, 36, 37 Two large
peaks in excitation are observed during late swing and early stance.19, 36, 37, 39 The exact magnitudes of
these peaks have not been clearly reported in the literature; however, when normalised to maximum
excitation within a stride, hamstring EMG has been reported as being of similar magnitude during late
swing and early stance.37, 39, 40 When normalised to excitation during a maximum voluntary isometric
contraction (MVIC), BFlh excitation during late swing and early stance is reported to exceed 100%
MVIC.38 It is not unusual to observe excitation levels in excess of 100% MVIC when using this
normalisation method during high-velocity tasks such as sprinting.41 In comparison to the rest of the
gait cycle, the magnitude of excitation in late swing has been reported as two to three times greater
than during early swing and late stance,36 and the excitation during early stance is significantly greater
than during late stance.37 In addition, studies of strength training exercises have demonstrated
differences in proximal to distal regional excitation of the hamstring muscles during exercises such as
the Nordic hamstring exercise, stiff-leg deadlift, bent-knee bridge, prone leg curl and sliding leg
curl.42-45 While differences in regional muscle excitation have not yet been investigated during high-
speed running, it is likely that this could provide further insight into muscle function and potential
injury mechanisms, as injuries often primarily affect one region (the proximal musculotendinous
junction).46
Musculotendon mechanics of the BFlh during high-speed running
Musculoskeletal modelling studies have provided valuable insight into the mechanics of the BFlh
musculotendon complex during high-speed running. Predictions of functional variables such as
musculotendon length and force changes throughout the gait cycle provide information that is unable
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
to be derived directly from human subjects. While there are still many limitations associated with
musculoskeletal modelling such as anatomical assumptions and approximations, and varying levels of
model complexity and subject-specificity, the limitations are reasonable if findings are interpreted in
context of these limitations.47, 48 Therefore, these studies are imperative to furthering understanding of
BFlh musculotendon function. However, to date, there have been limited musculoskeletal modelling
studies of overground running,17, 36 as most have collected data on a treadmill.18, 19, 49, 50 Data from
treadmill running has limited applicability since it induces kinematic and kinetic adaptations in an
athlete’s sprinting mechanics.51 Furthermore, while some have used recreational or sub-elite athletic
populations,17, 18, 36 there is a distinct lack of literature pertaining to athletic populations such as elite
level sprinters and football players, for whom hamstring injury mechanics are most relevant. A
summary of reported peak musculotendon stretch and force for running can be found in Table 1.
Musculotendon length changes
The hamstring muscles undergo a stretch-shortening cycle throughout high-speed running.49, 52 In the
first part of swing phase the BFlh shortens,17, 19, 49 as the knee flexes and the hip moves from extension
into flexion.18, 49 The hip continues to flex until terminal swing, while the knee starts to extend
throughout the second half of swing,18, 19, 49 causing the BFlh to rapidly lengthen.17-19, 49 Several studies
have reported peak lengthening velocity at the transition from knee flexion to extension,17, 18 and a
second, smaller peak in lengthening velocity has been described closer to terminal swing.17 During
terminal swing the BFlh reaches peak length and strain at approximately 112% of upright standing
muscle length.17-19, 22, 52 Just prior to foot strike, the BFlh starts to shorten as the hip extends and the
knee flexes in preparation for foot strike.17-19, 49 The hip continues to extend throughout stance, and the
knee flexes for the first half, before starting to extend.18, 49 Most studies suggest that the BFlh shortens
throughout stance.17, 19 However, two studies36, 53 have reported an eccentric (lengthening) contraction
of the hamstrings during late stance. The extension of the hip places the hamstrings in a shortened
position, and while the knee does extend after mid-stance, the hamstring sagittal plane moment arms
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
at the hip are greater than at the knee.18, 54 Therefore, it is argued that for knee extension to cause
lengthening of the hamstring muscles, the velocity of knee extension would have to substantially
exceed the velocity of hip extension.19 Although it seems likely that in most cases, the BFlh will
shorten throughout late stance, it may be possible that the length change is dependent on the degree of
hip and knee extension exhibited by an individual athlete.
While this information provides valuable insight into BFlh function during running, a limitation of the
majority of this work is that it considers only the length changes of the musculotendinous unit as a
whole. Relative lengthening and velocity contributions from the muscle and tendon components have
not been discussed in the majority of current research. Recently, Hooren and Bosch55, 56 have
challenged the view that changes in the whole musculotendinous unit may reflect muscle fascicle
behaviour. They propose that the muscle fascicles of the BFlh may not act eccentrically in the late
swing phase of high-speed running. Rather, that the tendinous element facilitates lengthening and the
fascicles remain closer to isometric. However, it should be noted that this proposal is based on
evidence from other lower limb muscles57, 58 and animal studies,59 and at this time there is no direct
evidence for this theory in the human hamstring muscles during running. Quasi-isometric fascicle
behaviour has been previously observed during high-speed running at the ankle plantar-flexor
complex and also in the vastus lateralis.57, 58 While we cannot assume that this fascicle behaviour
applies also to the hamstrings during running, it may suggest that this phenomena is plausible.
Further, both Chumanov et al.50 and Thelen et al.49 have differentiated BFlh muscle and tendon
contributions to lengthening using musculoskeletal modelling, and predicted small discrepancies in
lengthening patterns between the two elements. In fact, Thelen et al.49 noted that the stretch of the
muscle component slows once the muscle is excited at late swing, and that tendon stretch is primarily
responsible for negative work done during terminal swing. Hence, these modelling studies suggest
that length and velocity changes in the muscle fibres of the BFlh could be decoupled from the whole
musculotendon complex, although more focussed research is needed to clarify this relationship.
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Musculotendon force
The BFlh produces very little force throughout the first half of swing phase, after which a large peak
in musculotendinous force occurs. During late swing, the reported peak musculotendinous force is
between 10.5- 26.4 N·kg-1.17, 50, 52 This typically decreases prior to foot contact before a second
smaller peak is observed in early stance (3- 11.6 N·kg-1).17, 52 However, it has also been proposed that
the BFlh musculotendon force during early stance may have been underestimated due to over-
filtering, causing erroneously low hip and knee torques.29, 34 It is argued that in early stance, ground
reaction forces cause a large extension torque at the knee and a flexion torque at the hip.
Consequently, the hamstrings would be under very high load, in order to produce large flexion torque
at the knee, and extension torque at the hip, to counter the large passive forces.29, 34
The potential for injury during late swing phase
The occurrence of peak musculotendon force, high muscle excitation, negative work and peak
musculotendon length during terminal swing, have all been suggested to contribute to the increased
risk of injury in the late swing phase of high-speed running.17, 19, 20, 36 Chumanov and colleagues19
observed that peak stretch and negative work occurred exclusively during the swing phase of high-
speed treadmill running. Large loads were evident during both late swing and early stance; however,
peak musculotendon force of the BFlh increased significantly with increasing running velocity only in
the late swing phase. When combined with increasing negative work, the authors concluded that the
large inertial loads placed on the hamstrings during the late swing phase suggest an increased
likelihood of injury during late swing, rather than early stance.
Researchers proposing an isometric function of the hamstring fascicles at late swing also suggest that
this large force at late swing may be important in hamstring injury occurrence.55, 56 The authors
propose that forces at late swing may become too high for fascicles to remain isometric, and therefore
cause an eccentric contraction and concomitant vulnerability to injury.55, 56 However, this mechanism
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
is speculative, as there is not currently any data to support this theory in the hamstring muscles during
running.
The extensive strain experienced by the BFlh in late swing is also commonly suggested as a
contributor to, or even the primary cause for injury.17, 19, 21, 60 Schache and colleagues17 suggested that
it is the greater strain experienced by the BFlh compared to the other hamstring muscles, that makes it
more susceptible to injury. The strain experienced by the BFlh was 2.2% and 3.3% greater than for
semimembranosus and semitendinosus, respectively, while peak musculotendon force and negative
work were comparatively less for the BFlh. The relatively longer hip extension moment arm of the
BFlh compared to other hamstring muscles causes this greater lengthening and strain when the hip is
flexed in the late swing phase.18 Therefore, the peak strain experienced by BFlh during terminal swing
seems to be the parameter that distinguishes it from the other hamstring muscles, and therefore may
be the most relevant parameter for understanding why the BFlh in particularly is vulnerable to injury
during high-speed running.
The relationship between the level of muscle excitation and injury risk has been explored in animal
studies. Yu et al.36 suggested that the high levels of muscle excitation observed during late swing
exacerbate the susceptibility to strain injury. This proposal was based upon a study of the mouse
extensor digitorum longus muscle, which demonstrated that when a muscle is maximally activated,
the amount of strain needed to cause a muscle strain injury is decreased.61 This indicates that the high
levels of both excitation and muscle strain during late swing are both conditions which are likely to
increase the risk of hamstring strain injury.
Other researchers have drawn on evidence from animal models to support the argument that the
conditions during late swing are conducive to injury.61, 62 Early research on the rabbit extensor
digitorum longus muscle during active and passive lengthening first suggested that strain injury was
the result of reaching a critical strain, rather than exceeding a critical force.63 Notably, in this study,
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
failure always occurred at the musculotendinous junction, which suggests that these experiments
successfully mimicked real injury occurrence. In a study of the rabbit tibialis anterior, Lieber and
Friden62 measured the contractile properties of the muscle (as an indicator of muscle damage) after
eccentric contractions at various levels of force and strain. The results suggested that muscle damage
is not a function of muscle force, but rather the amount of muscle strain is the best indicator of injury.
Moreover, the study of the mouse extensor digitorum longus muscle also demonstrated that the
amount of negative work done by the muscle was the best predictor of injury magnitude, as indicated
by force deficits following active or passive stretching of the muscle.61 These principles support the
proposition that the mechanics of the BFlh during late swing are likely to be the cause of BFlh injury
during high-speed running.
Two incidences where injury to the BFlh has occurred during studies of high-speed running further
support late swing as the likely phase for injury occurrence.21, 23, 24 While the first kinematic deviations
to indicate injury occurred during stance, once neuromuscular latencies were accounted for, both
studies concluded that the late swing phase was the most likely time of injury occurrence.21, 23 In the
running trials prior to the injury occurrence, the BFlh of the subsequently injured leg demonstrated
greater peak length and force in late swing phase, compared to the contralateral muscle, as well as a
greater vertical ground reaction force and loading rate for the subsequently injured leg.23, 24 Following
the injury, the BFlh exhibited intolerance to eccentric contraction, performed less negative work and
had a reduced peak lengthening velocity.24 Despite having kinematic and kinetic data during an injury
occurrence, these studies have not provided conclusive evidence that the injury occurred during late
swing. While the information provided is no doubt unique and valuable, the arguments for the timing
of injury are still speculative, due to the uncertainty of predicting neuromuscular latency.23 This
highlights the complexity of predicting injury timing, and therefore, further work is needed to
conclusively determine the timing of injury.
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Finally, only one to date study has prospectively examined the relationship between running
mechanics and subsequent hamstring injury. Schuermans et al.64 determined that subsequently injured
soccer athletes displayed kinematic differences during high-speed running that were only observed
during the swing phase. Subsequently injured athletes displayed greater anterior pelvic tilt during mid
swing and greater lateral flexion of the thorax during the late swing phase. No kinematic differences
were found between subsequently injured and uninjured athletes during the stance phase. The same
authors also found differences in muscle excitation between subsequently injured and uninjured
soccer athletes, that were again constrained to the swing phase.65 During mid-swing, injured athletes
showed significantly lower muscle excitation of the trunk, and lower gluteal excitation during late
swing. Again, no differences were observed between injured and non-injured athletes during stance.
These findings support the contention that the late swing phase is the high-risk period for hamstring
injury occurrence during high-speed running.
The potential for injury during early stance
Fewer researchers have suggested that BFlh injury risk is greater during the early stance phase of
high-speed running.32, 66 Early research proposed that the greatest knee flexion and hip extension
moments occur during early stance phase, leading to very high loads on the hamstring muscles and
increased injury risk.32 One of the strongest voices in support of increased risk of injury during stance
phase rather than swing has been Orchard.66 He has reasoned that strong opposing forces resulting
from ground reaction forces during stance are likely to increase the risk of hamstring injury.
Orchard 66 also observed that muscle strains do not typically occur during open chain activities. For
example, while divers experience great stretch and high angular velocities when performing a pike,
they do not typically succumb to injury. This observation was used to reinforce the point that injuries
are more likely to occur when forces are high, rather than when the muscle experiences great strain.
However, this theory lacks experimental evidence to support this anecdotal observation.
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Some researchers suggest that injury risk is increased during both phases of high-speed running. A
recent opinion paper by Liu and colleagues34 supported Orchard’s arguments, stating that the
hamstrings would be under high load in early stance, due to ground reaction forces causing large joint
moments. They argued that the lower estimates of muscle forces during early stance reported in
musculoskeletal modelling studies is due to over-filtering of data, and that the hamstrings would be
vulnerable to injury in early stance due to this force peak. However, Liu and colleagues suggest that
both early stance and late swing are potentially hazardous times for injury during high-speed running.
They characterised these two phases as one “swing-stance transition” phase and advocated for a more
general principle, whereby the BFlh is more prone to injury when the muscle has to counter large
passive forces. In late swing, the muscle torque is high, to counteract a large motion dependent torque
created by the angular acceleration of the shank. Therefore, they propose that the inertial loads at late
swing, and external ground reaction force loads in early stance, both have the potential to cause injury
to the BFlh during high-speed running.
Future directions
This review has identified several gaps in the current knowledge of hamstring mechanics during
sprinting and how they may relate to the timing of hamstring injury. Firstly, there is a paucity of
studies examining athletic populations such as football players and sprinters, especially at the elite
level. Secondly, there may be further insights gained from exploring regional excitation of the
hamstrings during high-speed running. Third, there is also a need to examine relative lengthening and
velocity contributions of both the muscle and tendon when performing musculoskeletal modelling
analyses. This is important for distinguishing muscle and tendon contributions to peak strain and force
during the late swing phase, and will assist in refining injury prevention strategies. For example, there
is growing support for the importance of injury prevention exercises that result in lengthening of
muscle fascicles.67-69 Understanding the relative contribution of muscle fascicles to overall strain of
the musculotendon complex would serve to validate and inform this training principle. Finally, there
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
is a distinct lack of prospective studies examining the relationship between running mechanics and
hamstring injury occurrence. Schuermans et al.64 provided the first ever prospective link between
running mechanics and hamstring injury, using a strong study design which should be replicated in
other cohorts such as sprinters and other football codes. Further, this work could be improved in
future investigations by also examining kinetic variables, such as joint moments and powers. Indeed,
it would be a natural progression to also conduct prospective musculoskeletal modelling studies
examining the relationship between hamstring musculotendon dynamics and hamstring injury. This
would allow the identification of musculotendon dynamics, and the gait cycle phase, that are
associated with hamstring injury.
Perspective
The timing of hamstring injury during high-speed running has been a topic of debate for many years.
While we still lack direct evidence, the majority of the literature suggests that the most likely timing
of injury is the late swing phase. Future research should focus on prospectively examining the
relationship between running mechanics, hamstring musculotendon function and hamstring injury in
athletic populations.
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP)
Scholarship.
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
References
1. Dalton SL, Kerr ZY, Dompier TP. Epidemiology of hamstring strains in 25 NCAA sports in
the 2009-2010 to 2013-2014 academic years. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:2671-2679.
2. Woods C, Hawkins RD, Maltby S, Hulse M, Thomas A, Hodson A, et al. The Football
Association Medical Research Programme: an audit of injuries in professional football--analysis of
hamstring injuries. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38:36-41.
3. Orchard J, Seward H. Epidemiology of injuries in the Australian Football League, seasons
1997-2000. Br J Sports Med. 2002;36:39-44.
4. Brooks JH, Fuller CW, Kemp SP, Reddin DB. Incidence, risk, and prevention of hamstring
muscle injuries in professional rugby union. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34:1297-1306.
5. Hagglund M, Walden M, Magnusson H, Kristenson K, Bengtsson H, Ekstrand J. Injuries
affect team performance negatively in professional football: an 11-year follow-up of the UEFA
Champions League injury study. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47:738-742.
6. Verrall GM, Kalairajah Y, Slavotinek JP, Spriggins AJ. Assessment of player performance
following return to sport after hamstring muscle strain injury. J Sci Med Sport. 2006;9:87-90.
7. Elliott MC, Zarins B, Powell JW, Kenyon CD. Hamstring muscle strains in professional
football players a 10-year review. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:843-850.
8. Duhig S, Shield AJ, Opar D, Gabbett TJ, Ferguson C, Williams M. Effect of high-speed
running on hamstring strain injury risk. Br J Sports Med. 2016.
9. Koulouris G, Connell D. Evaluation of the hamstring muscle complex following acute injury.
Skeletal Radiol. 2003;32:582-589.
10. Askling CM, Tengvar M, Saartok T, Thorstensson A. Acute first-time hamstring strains
during high-speed running: a longitudinal study including clinical and magnetic resonance imaging
findings. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35:197-206.
11. Askling CM, Tengvar M, Thorstensson A. Acute hamstring injuries in Swedish elite football:
a prospective randomised controlled clinical trial comparing two rehabilitation protocols. Br J Sports
Med. 2013;47:953-959.
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
12. Ekstrand J, Healy JC, Walden M, Lee JC, English B, Hagglund M. Hamstring muscle injuries
in professional football: the correlation of MRI findings with return to play. Br J Sports Med.
2012;46:112-117.
13. Battermann N, Appell H-J, Dargel J, Koebke J. An anatomical study of the proximal
hamstring muscle complex to elucidate muscle strains in this region. Int J Sports Med. 2011;32:211-
215.
14. Fiorentino NM, Blemker SS. Musculotendon variability influences tissue strains experienced
by the biceps femoris long head muscle during high-speed running. J Biomech. 2014;47:3325-3333.
15. Fiorentino NM, Epstein FH, Blemker SS. Activation and aponeurosis morphology affect in
vivo muscle tissue strains near the myotendinous junction. J Biomech. 2012;45:647-652.
16. Evangelidis PE, Massey GJ, Pain MT, Folland JP. Biceps Femoris Aponeurosis Size: A
Potential Risk Factor for Strain Injury? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015;47:1383-1389.
17. Schache AG, Dorn TW, Blanch PD, Brown NA, Pandy MG. Mechanics of the human
hamstring muscles during sprinting. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:647-658.
18. Thelen DG, Chumanov ES, Hoerth DM, Best TM, Swanson SC, Li L, et al. Hamstring
muscle kinematics during treadmill sprinting. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37:108-114.
19. Chumanov ES, Heiderscheit BC, Thelen DG. Hamstring musculotendon dynamics during
stance and swing phases of high-speed running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43:525-532.
20. Chumanov ES, Schache AG, Heiderscheit BC, Thelen DG. Hamstrings are most susceptible
to injury during the late swing phase of sprinting. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46:90.
21. Heiderscheit BC, Hoerth DM, Chumanov ES, Swanson SC, Thelen BJ, Thelen DG.
Identifying the time of occurrence of a hamstring strain injury during treadmill running: a case study.
Clin Biomech. 2005;20:1072-1078.
22. Wan X, Qu F, Garrett WE, Liu H, Yu B. The effect of hamstring flexibility on peak
hamstring muscle strain in sprinting. J Sport Health Sci. 2017;6:283-289.
23. Schache AG, Wrigley TV, Baker R, Pandy MG. Biomechanical response to hamstring muscle
strain injury. Gait Posture. 2009;29:332-338.
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
24. Schache AG, Kim H-J, Morgan DL, Pandy MG. Hamstring muscle forces prior to and
immediately following an acute sprinting-related muscle strain injury. Gait Posture. 2010;32:136-140.
25. Sides DL. Kinematics and kinetics of maximal velocity sprinting and specificity of training in
elite athletes: University of Salford; 2014.
26. Mann R. The Mechanics of Sprinting and Hurdling. Lexington, KY: CreateSpace
Independent Publishing Platform ISBN13; 2011. 1461136316 p.
27. Novacheck TF. The biomechanics of running. Gait Posture. 1998;7:77-95.
28. Schache AG, Blanch PD, Dorn TW, Brown NA, Rosemond D, Pandy MG. Effect of running
speed on lower limb joint kinetics. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43:1260-1271.
29. Sun Y, Wei S, Zhong Y, Fu W, Li L, Liu Y. How joint torques affect hamstring injury risk in
sprinting swing–stance transition. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015;47:373-380.
30. Zhong Y, Fu W, Wei S, Li Q, Liu Y. Joint torque and mechanical power of lower extremity
and its relevance to hamstring strain during sprint running. J Healthc Eng. 2017;2017:1-7.
31. Bezodis IN, Kerwin DG, Salo AI. Lower-limb mechanics during the support phase of
maximum-velocity sprint running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:707-715.
32. Mann R, Sprague P. A kinetic analysis of the ground leg during sprint running. Res Q
Exercise Sport. 1980;51:334-348.
33. Bezodis NE, Salo AI, Trewartha G. Excessive fluctuations in knee joint moments during early
stance in sprinting are caused by digital filtering procedures. Gait Posture. 2013;38:653-657.
34. Liu Y, Sun Y, Zhu W, Yu J. The late swing and early stance of sprinting are most hazardous
for hamstring injuries. J Sport Health Sci. 2017.
35. Vigotsky AD, Halperin I, Lehman GJ, Trajano GS, Vieira TM. Interpreting signal amplitudes
in surface electromyography studies in sport and rehabilitation sciences. Frontiers in Physiology.
2018;8:985.
36. Yu B, Queen RM, Abbey AN, Liu Y, Moorman CT, Garrett WE. Hamstring muscle
kinematics and activation during overground sprinting. J Biomech. 2008;41:3121-3126.
37. Higashihara A, Nagano Y, Ono T, Fukubayashi T. Differences in activation properties of the
hamstring muscles during overground sprinting. Gait Posture. 2015;42:360-364.
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
38. Kyrolainen H, Avela J, Komi PV. Changes in muscle activity with increasing running speed.
J Sports Sci. 2005;23:1101-1109.
39. Whiteley R, Einarsson E, Thomson A, Hansen C. Is the swing or stance phase more likely to
injure the hamstrings during running? An EMG investigation using a reduced bodyweight (Alter-G®)
treadmill. J Sci Med Sport. 2017;20:e125.
40. Higashihara A, Nagano Y, Ono T, Fukubayashi T. Differences in hamstring activation
characteristics between the acceleration and maximum-speed phases of sprinting. J Sport Sci.
2018;36:1313-1318.
41. Ball N, Scurr J. Electromyography normalization methods for high-velocity muscle actions:
review and recommendations. J Appl Biomch. 2013;29:600-608.
42. Schoenfeld BJ, Contreras B, Tiryaki-Sonmez G, Wilson JM, Kolber MJ, Peterson MD.
Regional differences in muscle activation during hamstrings exercise. J Strength Cond Res.
2015;29:159-164.
43. Mendez-Villanueva A, Suarez-Arrones L, Rodas G, Fernandez-Gonzalo R, Tesch P,
Linnehan R, et al. MRI-based regional muscle use during hamstring strengthening exercises in elite
soccer players. PloS one. 2016;11.
44. Hegyi A, Peter A, Finni T, Cronin NJ. Region‐dependent hamstrings activity in Nordic
hamstring exercise and stiff‐leg deadlift defined with high‐density electromyography. Scand J Med
Sci Sports. 2018;28:992-1000.
45. Hegyi A, Csala D, Péter A, Finni T, Cronin NJ. High‐density electromyography activity in
various hamstring exercises. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2019;29:34-43.
46. Askling CM, Malliaropoulos N, Karlsson J. High-speed running type or stretching-type of
hamstring injuries makes a difference to treatment and prognosis. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46:86-87.
47. van der Krogt MM, Doorenbosch CA, Harlaar J. Validation of hamstrings musculoskeletal
modeling by calculating peak hamstrings length at different hip angles. J Biomech. 2008;41:1022-
1028.
48. Seth A, Sherman M, Reinbolt JA, Delp SL. OpenSim: a musculoskeletal modeling and
simulation framework for in silico investigations and exchange. Procedia Iutam. 2011;2:212-232.
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
49. Thelen DG, Chumanov ES, Best TM, Swanson SC, Heiderscheit BC. Simulation of biceps
femoris musculotendon mechanics during the swing phase of sprinting. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2005;37:1931-1938.
50. Chumanov ES, Heiderscheit BC, Thelen DG. The effect of speed and influence of individual
muscles on hamstring mechanics during the swing phase of sprinting. J Biomech. 2007;40:3555-3562.
51. Riley PO, Dicharry J, Franz J, Della Croce U, Wilder RP, Kerrigan DC. A kinematics and
kinetic comparison of overground and treadmill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:1093-1100.
52. Nagano Y, Higashihara A, Takahashi K, Fukubayashi T. Mechanics of the muscles crossing
the hip joint during sprint running. J Sport Sci. 2014;32:1722-1728.
53. Higashihara A, Nagano Y, Takahashi K, Fukubayashi T. Effects of forward trunk lean on
hamstring muscle kinematics during sprinting. J Sport Sci. 2015;33:1366-1375.
54. Visser J, Hoogkamer J, Bobbert M, Huijing P. Length and moment arm of human leg muscles
as a function of knee and hip-joint angles. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational
Physiology. 1990;61:453-460.
55. Van Hooren B, Bosch F. Is there really an eccentric action of the hamstrings during the swing
phase of high-speed running? part I: A critical review of the literature. J Sport Sci. 2016:1-9.
56. Van Hooren B, Bosch F. Preventing hamstring injuries - Part 2: There is possibly an isometric
action of the hamstrings in high-speed running and it does matter. Sport Perf Sci Rep. 2018;1.
57. Lai A, Schache AG, Lin Y-C, Pandy MG. Tendon elastic strain energy in the human ankle
plantar-flexors and its role with increased running speed. J Exp Biol. 2014;217:3159-3168.
58. Bohm S, Marzilger R, Mersmann F, Santuz A, Arampatzis A. Operating length and velocity
of human vastus lateralis muscle during walking and running. Scientific Reports. 2018;8:5066.
59. Gillis GB, Flynn JP, McGuigan P, Biewener AA. Patterns of strain and activation in the thigh
muscles of goats across gaits during level locomotion. J Exp Biol. 2005;208:4599-4611.
60. Yu B, Liu H, Garrett WE. Mechanism of hamstring muscle strain injury in sprinting. J Sport
Health Sci. 2017;6:130-132.
61. Brooks SV, Zerba E, Faulkner JA. Injury to muscle fibres after single stretches of passive and
maximally stimulated muscles in mice. J Physiol. 1995;488:459-469.
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
62. Lieber RL, Friden J. Muscle damage is not a function of muscle force but active muscle
strain. J Appl Physiol. 1993;74:520-526.
63. Garrett WE, Safran MR, Seaber AV, Glisson RR, Ribbeck BM. Biomechanical comparison of
stimulated and nonstimulated skeletal muscle pulled to failure. Am J Sports Med. 1987;15:448-454.
64. Schuermans J, Van Tiggelen D, Palmans T, Danneels L, Witvrouw E. Deviating running
kinematics and hamstring injury susceptibility in male soccer players: cause or consequence? Gait
Posture. 2017;57:270-277.
65. Schuermans J, Danneels L, Van Tiggelen D, Palmans T, Witvrouw E. Proximal
neuromuscular control protects against hamstring injuries in male soccer players: a prospective study
with electromyography time-series analysis during maximal sprinting. Am J Sports Med.
2017;45:1315-1325.
66. Orchard JW. Hamstrings are most susceptible to injury during the early stance phase of
sprinting. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46:88-89.
67. 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 hamstring injury in elite
football (soccer): a prospective cohort study. Br J Sports Med. 2015;50:1524-1535.
68. Bourne MN, Duhig SJ, Timmins RG, Williams MD, Opar DA, Al Najjar A, et al. Impact of
the Nordic hamstring and hip extension exercises on hamstring architecture and morphology:
implications for injury prevention. Br J Sports Med. 2016:bjsports-2016-096130.
69. Bourne MN, Timmins RG, Opar DA, Pizzari T, Ruddy JD, Sims C, et al. An Evidence-Based
Framework for Strengthening Exercises to Prevent Hamstring Injury. Sports Med. 2017:1-17.
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Table 1 Summary of literature describing BFlh musculotendon stretch and force during high-speed running
Data is presented as the mean (SD) where possible. Reported timings of peaks within gait cycle (% of gait cycle) reflect stance followed by swing, where the
transition from stance to swing occurred at 16.1 – 26.8% (range). MT = musculotendon, M = male, F = female. a Normalised to length during upright posture/
optimum length or change in length (mm) from upright posture, b Estimated from a graph. c As described by authors, peak occurred within reported range.
Study details
BFlh MT stretch
BFlh MT force
Authors (year)
Cohort
Running
mode
Running
speed (m/s)
Peak MT stretcha
Peak MT force
during swing
Peak MT force
during stance
Timing of peak
(% gait cycle)
Timing of peak
(% gait cycle)
Timing of peak
(% gait cycle)
Thelen et al.
(2005) 49
1 adult male
Treadmill
9.3
~60 mm b
~90 %
17.6 N·kg-1
~85 % b
-
Nagano et al.
(2014) 52
8 male track and field
athletes (sub-elite)
Overground
9.5 (0.2)
1.2 (0.0)
82.8 (1.9) %
10.5 (0.7) N·kg-1
80.3 (3.0) %
~3 N·kg-1 b
~5 % b
Schache et al.
(2012) 17
7 experienced sprinters
(5 M, 2 F)
Overground
8.9 (0.7)
1.1 (0.0)
86.4 (1.71) %
26.4 (5.2) N·kg-1
82.9 (1.0) %
4.6 (1.0) N·kg-1
0.0 (1.3) %
Chumanov et al.
(2011) 19
12 adults
(9 M, 3 F)
Treadmill
8.0 (M),
7.1 (F)
1.1 (0.0)
~90 %
13.2 (1.5) N·kg-1
85-95 % c
11.6 (1.9) N·kg-1
~10% b
Thelen et al.
(2005) 18
14 athletes
(9 M, 5 F)
Treadmill
9.4 (0.6; M),
8.1 (0.8; F)
1.1 (0.0)
89.6 (3.7) %
-
-
Chumanov et al.
(2007) 50
19 athletes
(14 M, 5 F)
Treadmill
9.1 (0.6; M),
8.2 (0.8; F)
51.2 (4.4) mm
~90 %
21.4 (5.4) N·kg-1
85-95 % c
-
Wan et al. (2017)
22
20 college students
(10 M, 10 F)
Overground
8.0 (0.49; M),
6.9 (0.43; F)
1.1 (0.1)
~90 % b
-
-
Accepted Article
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Figure Legends
Figure 1 The sprinting gait cycle. a) Early swing b) Mid swing c) Late swing d) Early stance/ foot
strike e) Mid stance f) Late stance/ toe off 25,26
- A preview of this full-text is provided by Wiley.
- Learn more
Preview content only
Content available from Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
