Hamstring strains frequently occur during high-speed running, where the hamstrings must produce force rapidly while coordinating movement across the hip and knee.
The conventional single-leg bridge test is commonly used to assess hamstring capacity.
However, athletes typically perform the test at a self-selected speed, which limits its ability to reflect the rapid contractions required during sprinting.
The researchers developed a maximum-speed single-leg bridge test and wanted to answer:
If an athlete performs a single-leg bridge as explosively as possible, what platform height creates the greatest hamstring demand?
What Did the Researchers Do?
Participants
The researchers recruited 26 healthy male recreational athletes:
- Age: 21.0 ± 1.9 years
- Height: 174.1 ± 6.2 cm
- Body mass: 69.4 ± 11.6 kg
- All regularly completed resistance training and sprinting
- None had sustained a hamstring strain in the previous 18 months
Conditions
Each participant completed four conditions with both legs:
- Conventional single-leg bridge from a 60 cm platform at a self-selected speed
- Maximum-speed bridge from a 60 cm platform
- Maximum-speed bridge from a 40 cm platform
- Maximum-speed bridge from a 20 cm platform
The conventional bridge was always performed first. The three maximum-speed conditions were then completed in a randomized order.
Participants completed five repetitions per condition. The middle three repetitions were used for analysis.
Measurements
- Buttock-raising velocity using markerless video analysis
- Semitendinosus muscle activity
- Biceps femoris muscle activity
- Gluteus maximus muscle activity
- Vertical force applied through the heel
Muscle activity was collected using surface electromyography and normalized to each participant’s maximal voluntary isometric contraction, reported as %MVIC.
What Were the Results?
Moving with maximal intent substantially increased velocity
The conventional bridge was performed at approximately 0.45–0.46 m/s.
Maximum-speed performance increased velocity to:
- 60 cm: 0.93–1.00 m/s
- 40 cm: 0.97–0.98 m/s
- 20 cm: 0.74 m/s
The 40 and 60 cm conditions were approximately twice as fast as the conventional bridge. Both were also faster than the 20 cm condition.
The 40 and 60 cm platforms produced the greatest hamstring activity
Semitendinosus activity during the maximum-speed 40 and 60 cm conditions generally approached or exceeded 90% MVIC.
Biceps femoris activity exceeded 100% MVIC in both maximum-speed conditions:
- 60 cm: 107.5–114.8% MVIC
- 40 cm: 103.4–114.6% MVIC
Both heights produced significantly greater biceps femoris activity than the conventional bridge.
The 20 cm platform increased speed but did not consistently increase hamstring activity compared with the conventional condition. This suggests that faster movement alone did not guarantee greater hamstring recruitment. The position from which the movement was performed also mattered.
Maximum-speed bridges increased heel force
The conventional bridge produced approximately 132–136 N of vertical heel force.
Maximum-speed conditions increased this to approximately 160–175 N, representing a 20–30% increase.
The 40 cm platform produced the highest or joint-highest force:
- Dominant leg: 172.7 N
- Non-dominant leg: 174.6 N
On the non-dominant side, the 40 cm condition produced significantly more force than the 60 cm condition.
Gluteus maximus activity increased, but remained moderate
Gluteus maximus activity roughly doubled during the maximum-speed conditions compared with the conventional bridge.
However, it remained around 29–41% MVIC. The exercise produced high hamstring activation without placing similarly high demands on the gluteus maximus.
What Does This Mean?
Intent changes the exercise.
Telling an athlete to raise the hips “as fast and high as possible” produced substantially greater movement velocity, heel force, and hamstring activity than allowing the athlete to select their own speed.
Platform height also affected the result. The 20 cm platform produced lower velocity and less consistent hamstring activation than the 40 and 60 cm platforms.
The 40 cm platform appears to provide the best practical option as it produced:
- Approximately 1 m/s of raising velocity
- Greater than 90% MVIC in both hamstring muscles
- The highest or joint-highest heel force
- A setup that can be reproduced using a standard bench or chair
However, the claim that 40 cm is the definitive “optimal” height is stronger than the evidence supports. Hamstring activity was similar between 40 and 60 cm, and the force advantage at 40 cm was only statistically clear for the non-dominant leg.
Limitations
- This was an acute EMG study and did not assess adaptation, injury prevention, rehabilitation outcomes, or return-to-sport readiness.
- Surface EMG estimates muscle activation, not muscle force, fascicle behavior, or tissue strain.
- Values above 100% MVIC do not mean the muscle produced more than 100% of its possible force; dynamic exercise and isometric normalization conditions are not directly equivalent.
- No evidence was provided that performance on this test relates to sprinting ability or future hamstring injury.
Coach’s Takeaway
- Intent is a programming variable ⮕ “Lift as fast as possible” creates a meaningfully different exercise from a self-paced bridge.
- Use a 40–60 cm platform when the goal is high hamstring activation ⮕ The 40 cm setup provides the best combination of hamstring activity, heel force, and practicality.
- Treat this as a high-intent hamstring exercise for now ⮕ program with relatively low volumes of 2-3 sets of 4-6 explosive reps.
I hope this helps,
Ramsey
Reference: Sano Y, Kawabata M, Sumiya Y, et al. (2025). Evaluating the optimal height for hamstring activity in the maximum-speed single-leg bridge test. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 46, 430–436.
The Performance Academy: Gain access to the best performance and rehab minds in the world through premium masterclasses, live and recorded events, plus a network of coaches and therapist around the world. Education, community, and networking under one roof, all at your fingertips.
