Mechanics of the human hamstring muscles during sprinting

Anthony G. Schache, Tim W. Dorn, Peter D. Blanch, Nicholas A T Brown, Marcus G. Pandy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

101 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: An understanding of hamstring mechanics during sprinting is important for elucidating why these muscles are so vulnerable to acute strain-type injury. The purpose of this study was twofold: first, to quantify the biomechanical load (specifically, musculotendon strain, velocity, force, power, and work) experienced by the hamstrings across a full stride cycle; and second, to determine how these parameters differ for each hamstring muscle (i.e., semimembranosus (SM), semitendinosus (ST), biceps femoris long head (BF), biceps femoris short head (BF)). Methods: Full-body kinematics and ground reaction force data were recorded simultaneously from seven subjects while sprinting on an indoor running track. Experimental data were integrated with a three-dimensional musculoskeletal computer model comprised of 12 body segments and 92 musculotendon structures. The model was used in conjunction with an optimization algorithm to calculate musculotendon strain, velocity, force, power, and work for the hamstrings. Results: SM, ST, and BF all reached peak strain, produced peak force, and formed much negative work (energy absorption) during terminal swing. The biomechanical load differed for each hamstring muscle: BF exhibited the largest peak strain, ST displayed the greatest lengthening velocity, and SM produced the highest peak force, absorbed and generated the most power, and performed the largest amount of positive and negative work. Conclusions: As peak musculotendon force and strain for BF, ST, and SM occurred around the same time during terminal swing, it is suggested that this period in the stride cycle may be when the biarticular hamstrings are at greatest injury risk. On this basis, hamstring injury prevention or rehabilitation programs should preferentially target strengthening exercises that involve eccentric contractions performed with high loads at longer musculotendon lengths.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)647-658
Number of pages12
JournalMedicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
Volume44
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Mechanics
Hamstring Muscles
Wounds and Injuries
Biomechanical Phenomena
Running
Computer Simulation
Rehabilitation
Muscles

Cite this

Schache, Anthony G. ; Dorn, Tim W. ; Blanch, Peter D. ; Brown, Nicholas A T ; Pandy, Marcus G. / Mechanics of the human hamstring muscles during sprinting. In: Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2012 ; Vol. 44, No. 4. pp. 647-658.
@article{31c0769fafd34f2b91342fac9cb40bc1,
title = "Mechanics of the human hamstring muscles during sprinting",
abstract = "Purpose: An understanding of hamstring mechanics during sprinting is important for elucidating why these muscles are so vulnerable to acute strain-type injury. The purpose of this study was twofold: first, to quantify the biomechanical load (specifically, musculotendon strain, velocity, force, power, and work) experienced by the hamstrings across a full stride cycle; and second, to determine how these parameters differ for each hamstring muscle (i.e., semimembranosus (SM), semitendinosus (ST), biceps femoris long head (BF), biceps femoris short head (BF)). Methods: Full-body kinematics and ground reaction force data were recorded simultaneously from seven subjects while sprinting on an indoor running track. Experimental data were integrated with a three-dimensional musculoskeletal computer model comprised of 12 body segments and 92 musculotendon structures. The model was used in conjunction with an optimization algorithm to calculate musculotendon strain, velocity, force, power, and work for the hamstrings. Results: SM, ST, and BF all reached peak strain, produced peak force, and formed much negative work (energy absorption) during terminal swing. The biomechanical load differed for each hamstring muscle: BF exhibited the largest peak strain, ST displayed the greatest lengthening velocity, and SM produced the highest peak force, absorbed and generated the most power, and performed the largest amount of positive and negative work. Conclusions: As peak musculotendon force and strain for BF, ST, and SM occurred around the same time during terminal swing, it is suggested that this period in the stride cycle may be when the biarticular hamstrings are at greatest injury risk. On this basis, hamstring injury prevention or rehabilitation programs should preferentially target strengthening exercises that involve eccentric contractions performed with high loads at longer musculotendon lengths.",
keywords = "muscle force, muscle function, muscle injury, musculoskeletal modeling, Running biomechanics",
author = "Schache, {Anthony G.} and Dorn, {Tim W.} and Blanch, {Peter D.} and Brown, {Nicholas A T} and Pandy, {Marcus G.}",
year = "2012",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1249/MSS.0b013e318236a3d2",
language = "English",
volume = "44",
pages = "647--658",
journal = "Medicine Science in Sports Exercise",
issn = "0195-9131",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

Mechanics of the human hamstring muscles during sprinting. / Schache, Anthony G.; Dorn, Tim W.; Blanch, Peter D.; Brown, Nicholas A T; Pandy, Marcus G.

In: Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Vol. 44, No. 4, 01.04.2012, p. 647-658.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mechanics of the human hamstring muscles during sprinting

AU - Schache, Anthony G.

AU - Dorn, Tim W.

AU - Blanch, Peter D.

AU - Brown, Nicholas A T

AU - Pandy, Marcus G.

PY - 2012/4/1

Y1 - 2012/4/1

N2 - Purpose: An understanding of hamstring mechanics during sprinting is important for elucidating why these muscles are so vulnerable to acute strain-type injury. The purpose of this study was twofold: first, to quantify the biomechanical load (specifically, musculotendon strain, velocity, force, power, and work) experienced by the hamstrings across a full stride cycle; and second, to determine how these parameters differ for each hamstring muscle (i.e., semimembranosus (SM), semitendinosus (ST), biceps femoris long head (BF), biceps femoris short head (BF)). Methods: Full-body kinematics and ground reaction force data were recorded simultaneously from seven subjects while sprinting on an indoor running track. Experimental data were integrated with a three-dimensional musculoskeletal computer model comprised of 12 body segments and 92 musculotendon structures. The model was used in conjunction with an optimization algorithm to calculate musculotendon strain, velocity, force, power, and work for the hamstrings. Results: SM, ST, and BF all reached peak strain, produced peak force, and formed much negative work (energy absorption) during terminal swing. The biomechanical load differed for each hamstring muscle: BF exhibited the largest peak strain, ST displayed the greatest lengthening velocity, and SM produced the highest peak force, absorbed and generated the most power, and performed the largest amount of positive and negative work. Conclusions: As peak musculotendon force and strain for BF, ST, and SM occurred around the same time during terminal swing, it is suggested that this period in the stride cycle may be when the biarticular hamstrings are at greatest injury risk. On this basis, hamstring injury prevention or rehabilitation programs should preferentially target strengthening exercises that involve eccentric contractions performed with high loads at longer musculotendon lengths.

AB - Purpose: An understanding of hamstring mechanics during sprinting is important for elucidating why these muscles are so vulnerable to acute strain-type injury. The purpose of this study was twofold: first, to quantify the biomechanical load (specifically, musculotendon strain, velocity, force, power, and work) experienced by the hamstrings across a full stride cycle; and second, to determine how these parameters differ for each hamstring muscle (i.e., semimembranosus (SM), semitendinosus (ST), biceps femoris long head (BF), biceps femoris short head (BF)). Methods: Full-body kinematics and ground reaction force data were recorded simultaneously from seven subjects while sprinting on an indoor running track. Experimental data were integrated with a three-dimensional musculoskeletal computer model comprised of 12 body segments and 92 musculotendon structures. The model was used in conjunction with an optimization algorithm to calculate musculotendon strain, velocity, force, power, and work for the hamstrings. Results: SM, ST, and BF all reached peak strain, produced peak force, and formed much negative work (energy absorption) during terminal swing. The biomechanical load differed for each hamstring muscle: BF exhibited the largest peak strain, ST displayed the greatest lengthening velocity, and SM produced the highest peak force, absorbed and generated the most power, and performed the largest amount of positive and negative work. Conclusions: As peak musculotendon force and strain for BF, ST, and SM occurred around the same time during terminal swing, it is suggested that this period in the stride cycle may be when the biarticular hamstrings are at greatest injury risk. On this basis, hamstring injury prevention or rehabilitation programs should preferentially target strengthening exercises that involve eccentric contractions performed with high loads at longer musculotendon lengths.

KW - muscle force

KW - muscle function

KW - muscle injury

KW - musculoskeletal modeling

KW - Running biomechanics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84858706082&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318236a3d2

DO - 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318236a3d2

M3 - Article

VL - 44

SP - 647

EP - 658

JO - Medicine Science in Sports Exercise

JF - Medicine Science in Sports Exercise

SN - 0195-9131

IS - 4

ER -