Understanding the Nordic Hamstring Exercise

About the Authors

Dr. Morgan Williams is a Data Scientist at VALD, an Adjunct Associate Professor at Griffith University’s School of Allied Health, Sport and Social Work and an external affiliate member of the Australian Centre for Precision Health and Technology (PRECISE). As part of the VALD Data Science Team, he uncovers new insights into VALD data and how it can be used to enhance practice.

Associate Professor Matt Bourne is a Principal Research Fellow at Griffith University and spearheads the Precision Athlete research program at the PRECISE. He leads a multidisciplinary research team focused on developing and applying innovative technologies to optimize performance and predict, prevent and recover from sports injuries.

Background

The Nordic hamstring exercise (NHE), also known as the Nordic hamstring curl, Russian leg curl, inverse leg curl or natural glute-ham raise, is a fundamental component of hamstring injury prevention and performance programs. Meta-analyses of nearly 8,500 athletes found that injury prevention programs including the NHE reduce hamstring injury risk by more than 50% (van Dyk et al., 2019).

As early as 1880, the NHE was recognized for its benefits in addressing specific physical weaknesses.

As early as 1880, the NHE was recognized for its benefits in addressing specific physical weaknesses (Taylor, 1880). Today, backed by extensive research, this simple yet highly effective exercise has become a staple in the routines of top athletes and fitness enthusiasts worldwide. With systems such as NordBord capable of measuring NHE performance, practitioners now use the exercise not only for training but as a reliable method for monitoring and testing.

Excerpt from Health by Exercise, an early guide to using targeted movement to address physical weaknesses (Taylor, 1880).

This article outlines how to effectively integrate the NHE into training for both performance enhancement and injury risk reduction. Combining research and applied practice, it highlights key coaching strategies, common technical errors and methods to improve training adherence.

Using the NHE in Practice

The NHE uses an athlete’s body mass to load the hamstrings eccentrically and can be performed with no equipment. Its simplicity makes it highly adaptable, suitable for nearly any setting and for athletes of all ages and training levels.

Key adaptations from NHE training include eccentric strengthening of the knee flexors and lengthening of biceps femoris long head fascicles, among other secondary and tertiary adaptations (Bourne et al., 2018).

…the NHE has become a cornerstone of research-backed injury prevention programs…

With its ease of implementation, proven performance benefits and strong evidence for reducing hamstring injury risk, the NHE has become a cornerstone of research-backed injury prevention programs, including:

• FIFA 11+ Program
• Activate by Rugby Football Union (RFU)
• Netball Australia’s Knee Program

Barriers to Performing the NHE

Although the NHE is commonly included in injury prevention programs, compliance can be a challenge. One barrier is the high level of voluntary effort required to resist forward movement. This demand can initially be perceived as uncomfortable, particularly for athletes new to the exercise.

Another consideration is delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS), which typically peaks two days after the initial session. While often viewed negatively, this response reflects protective adaptations associated with the repeated-bout effect, whereby subsequent exposures result in markedly less soreness and muscle damage (McHugh, 2003).

While often viewed negatively, [DOMS] reflects protective adaptations associated with the repeated-bout effect, whereby subsequent exposures result in markedly less soreness and muscle damage.

Performing the movement passively and falling forward without maintaining sufficient tension may reduce discomfort, but it fails to elicit the mechanical stimulus necessary for meaningful adaptation. Accordingly, practitioners should ensure athletes are appropriately prepared and instructed to execute the NHE with adequate intent and control.

Warm-Up

Warming up before performing the NHE helps prepare the athlete for the required intensity. Recommended warm-up options include:

• Performing isometric efforts of increasing intensity in a prone position
• Completing 2-4 repetitions of ISO 30 holds of increasing intensity for 3-5 seconds
• Executing submaximal eccentric efforts of increasing intensity as per the protocols used in research (Opar et al., 2013)

Execution

Below is the preferred setup to perform the NHE:

1. Kneel on a padded surface with ankles securely held by a partner or fixed in equipment, such as NordBord.
2. Set knees hip-width apart in a tall kneeling position, with hips, knees and shoulders aligned.
3. Keep the body neutral throughout, with the tibia horizontal and feet pointing down.
4. Position hands in front of the body, on the hips or across the chest.
5. Slowly lean forward from the knees while maximally resisting the fall using the hamstrings.
6. Maintain a neutral trunk and hips as long as possible.
7. Catch the fall with the hands once control is lost.
8. Use the hands to push or “walk” back to the start to minimize concentric loading.

A key factor underpinning its effectiveness is the progressively increasing knee-flexion moment arm as the athlete leans forward, which systematically increases eccentric demand on the hamstrings.

This rising mechanical challenge requires high levels of eccentric loading at long muscle lengths, making the exercise both time-efficient and potent when executed with appropriate intent and control.

…rising mechanical challenge [of the NHE] requires high levels of eccentric loading at long muscle lengths…

Mechanical demands of the NHE visualized.

Common Faults

The NHE is occasionally performed in ways that limit its unique benefits. Shortening the repetition or performing compensatory movements to avoid loading the hamstrings are often drivers of ineffective execution.

Technologies like NordBord produce identifiable waveforms, making execution faults easy to detect.

Technologies like NordBord produce identifiable waveforms, making execution faults easy to detect.

Four common faults detected by NordBord during the NHE.

The table below expands on the most common faults observed during NHE training and testing, along with the downstream consequences they can cause. Each fault is paired with practical coaching cues and alternative exercises, recognizing that poor execution not only reduces training effectiveness but also leads to the mistaken belief that adaptation has been achieved when the stimulus was insufficient.

Why Technique Matters

For the NHE to deliver meaningful adaptations, whether for performance or injury risk reduction, technical execution matters. The exercise relies on a true eccentric overload stimulus, and when technique breaks down, that stimulus is reduced, limiting both training effectiveness and intended outcomes.

If an athlete struggles with execution, the NHE can be regressed to isometric holds at the point of breakdown or partial-range Nordics to reinforce control. NordBord feedback can then be used to guide and monitor progression.

NordBord Training Mode removes much of the guesswork by allowing practitioners to monitor force output and provide real-time feedback, helping ensure the appropriate eccentric load is achieved. Poor execution compromises eccentric demand, which can slow progress, distort training intent and reduce the value of the session.

NordBord was originally developed to move the NHE beyond simply counting sets and repetitions, enabling objective feedback, progress tracking and athlete comparison. While it has already become a trusted tool for field-based hamstring strength testing, the addition of features such as Training Mode, impulse measurement and isometric rate of force development (RFD) expands its role from assessment into daily training and rehabilitation.

Today, NordBord functions as both an assessment and training tool, supporting better execution, higher-quality loading and more informed decision-making.

…NordBord functions as both an assessment and training tool, supporting better execution, higher-quality loading and more informed decision-making.

For more information on implementing NordBord Training Mode or integrating NHE into performance or rehabilitation settings, get in touch with our team.

References

1. Bourne, M. N., Timmins, R. G., Opar, D. A., Pizzari, T., Ruddy, J. D., Sims, C., Williams, M. D., & Shield, A. J. (2018). An evidence-based framework for strengthening exercises to prevent hamstring injury. Sports Medicine, 48(2), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0796-x
2. McHugh, M. P. (2003). Recent advances in the understanding of the repeated bout effect: The protective effect against muscle damage from a single bout of eccentric exercise. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 13(2), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0838.2003.02477.x
3. Opar, D. A., Piatkowski, T., Williams, M. D., & Shield, A. J. (2013). A novel device using the Nordic hamstring exercise to assess eccentric knee flexor strength: a reliability and retrospective injury study. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 43(9), 636–640. https://www.jospt.org/doi/10.2519/jospt.2013.4837
4. Sadigursky, D., Braid, J. A., De Lira, D. N. L., Machado, B. A. B., Carneiro, R. J. F., & Colavolpe, P. O. (2017). The FIFA 11+ Injury Prevention Program for Soccer players: a Systematic Review. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-017-0083-z
5. Taylor, G. H. (1880). Health by exercise. What exercises to take and how to take them, to remove special physical weakness. Embracing an account of the Swedish methods, and a summary of the principles of hygiene. New York: American Book Exchange.
6. Van Dyk, N., Behan, F. P., & Whiteley, R. (2019). Including the Nordic hamstring exercise in injury prevention programmes halves the rate of hamstring injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 8459 athletes. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 53(21), 1362–1370. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-100045