New Year’s Holiday Sale: ends december 31st
For decades, strength and conditioning professionals have drilled home a single truth: if you want stronger hamstrings, you have to go heavy. Nordic hamstring curls with added load, eccentric-focused RDLs at 80 percent of your max, or flywheel-based devices pushing athletes toward supramaximal outputs. The underlying assumption has always been the same — maximal eccentric adaptations require maximal load.
But what happens when the demands of baseball don’t allow for it? In-season rotations, cumulative throwing fatigue, sprint workloads, and long travel schedules leave little bandwidth for heavy eccentric training. This creates a fundamental dilemma: prioritize eccentric durability at the risk of overloading recovery, or protect freshness at the risk of undertraining a critical muscle group.
Jones et al. (2022) disrupted this equation with a surprising finding: blood flow restriction [BFR] training at just 30% of 1RM produced similar eccentric hamstring strength gains as traditional 80% 1RM loading. For baseball players, this is not a small detail — it suggests that we can build eccentric strength in a joint-sparing, recovery-conscious manner, something that directly addresses the in-season constraints pitchers and position players face.
The hamstrings are central to baseball performance. They drive hip extension in sprinting, stabilize pelvis mechanics in rotational sequences, and serve as critical decelerators during both sprinting and throwing. Weakness here is not just a performance bottleneck — it is one of the strongest predictors of hamstring strain injury (Opar et al., 2012).
Traditionally, eccentric overload has been prescribed as the solution. Studies on Nordic hamstring curls consistently show reductions in injury risk and meaningful eccentric strength gains (van Dyk et al., 2019). Flywheel-based eccentric training has also been shown to increase fascicle length and eccentric torque (Presland et al., 2018). Yet the price tag is steep: delayed onset muscle soreness, tendon stress, and long recovery windows — all of which are problematic in the middle of a season.
In baseball specifically, layering this on top of throwing workloads raises serious concerns. Pitchers already accumulate eccentric load through arm deceleration mechanics (Seroyer et al., 2010). Adding heavy lower-limb eccentrics risks tipping the balance toward overuse. This is why Jones et al. (2022) matters: it proposes a way to build eccentric hamstring durability without overdrawing the recovery account.
The six-week trial compared two protocols:
The results were clear:
In short: BFR matched heavy eccentrics for hamstring strength development at one-third of the load.
Jones et al. (2022) is not the first to show that BFR can deliver big returns with light weights. Takarada et al. (2000) demonstrated hypertrophy at loads as low as 20–30% of 1RM when combined with BFR. More recent work has shown BFR’s ability to drive tendon adaptations and preserve muscle mass during injury recovery (Hughes et al., 2017). For baseball, where protecting elbow and shoulder integrity is paramount, these findings align perfectly with the broader theme: joint-sparing, recovery-conscious adaptations are often more valuable than maximal hypertrophy.
Why does this matter for baseball? Because eccentric hamstring strength is a known buffer against injury. In a large-scale prospective study, athletes with eccentric hamstring weakness were at significantly higher risk of strain (Opar et al., 2012). Nordic interventions reduce this risk substantially (van Dyk et al., 2019). By showing that BFR can achieve similar eccentric strength gains, Jones et al. indirectly positions BFR as an injury-prevention tool in baseball, especially in-season when heavy eccentrics aren’t feasible.
This dovetails with what we know from baseball workload studies. DeFroda et al. (2016) highlighted that early-season workloads and sudden spikes in stress are major risk factors for UCL injury. Gdovin et al. (2025) showed that when pitchers trained only with pitching workloads and no resistance training, velocity and arm health declined, underscoring the importance of maintaining strength under load constraints. Together, these studies reinforce a critical truth: athletes cannot afford to abandon strength development in-season, but they also cannot tolerate maximal eccentric loading on top of pitching stress.
BFR offers a bridge between these competing demands.
The acute swelling seen in the Jones study provides a clue. BFR works by restricting venous return, creating an environment of metabolic stress and cellular swelling. This triggers anabolic signaling pathways (notably mTOR activation) independent of high mechanical tension (Loenneke et al., 2012).
For eccentrics, this matters greatly. Traditional eccentric overload drives adaptation through mechanical damage and repair. BFR suggests another pathway exists: one that generates similar strength outcomes with minimal damage. For baseball players balancing heavy throwing and sprinting demands, that distinction may mean fewer missed training sessions, less soreness, and greater cumulative durability.
At VeloU, we talk about training stress as a finite currency. Every throw, sprint, lift, or recovery session spends from the same account. Pitchers especially must budget wisely. When throwing workloads already account for massive eccentric demand on the arm, adding heavy hamstring eccentrics is like overspending.
This is where BFR fits. During in-season phases, we use low-load BFR eccentrics — Nordic regressions, slideboard eccentrics, banded RDLs — at roughly 30% 1RM under restriction. These sessions allow athletes to maintain eccentric hamstring durability without overspending recovery currency.
In early rehab phases, BFR is even more valuable. Following UCL reconstruction or lower-limb strain, heavy loading is often not tolerated. But losing eccentric hamstring strength compromises sprint capacity and increases re-injury risk. BFR acts as a safe bridge: low load, high return.
We also use BFR diagnostically. If an athlete can tolerate BFR eccentrics consistently, it often indicates readiness to progress to higher-load methods. If they cannot, we hold them in that joint-sparing space until tolerance improves.
Every study has limitations. Jones et al. (2022) used healthy adults, not elite pitchers mid-season. The intervention lasted six weeks, not six months. Power development still favored high loads, and true tendon robustness may still require high mechanical tension. BFR is not a replacement for heavy training, but a complement.
Additionally, BFR implementation matters: cuff width, occlusion pressure, and exercise selection all influence outcomes. Improper application could negate benefits or increase risk.
Jones et al. (2022) reminds us that strength training is not about lifting the heaviest possible weight — it’s about finding the most effective strategy within the constraints of an athlete’s real-world schedule. For baseball, where eccentric hamstring durability is non-negotiable but recovery is finite, BFR eccentrics expand the menu of tools available.
The bigger picture, reinforced by Opar’s work on injury prediction, van Dyk’s Nordic trials, and DeFroda’s insights on workload, is that maintaining eccentric durability is non-negotiable. The question is how to do it without compromising everything else. BFR provides a compelling answer: low load, high return.
At VeloU, we don’t see BFR as a gimmick. We see it as a stress-management tool, one that allows us to protect recovery while preserving the eccentric durability athletes need to perform. The future of performance training isn’t just heavier — it’s smarter. And BFR is one of the smartest tools we have.
.png)
.png)
