Recently there has been some comment on the dangers of lat pulldowns behind
the neck, since some authorities believe that they causes shoulder injuries.
However, it is not just that any exercise is dangerous, but that there are
'right' and 'wrong' ways for any given individual to execute every exercise.
There has been quite a trend today to simplify the cause of injuries into
neat little formulae that run something like this:
* Squats are bad for the knees
* Deadlifts and cleans are bad for the back
* Belts weaken the back
* Muscle imbalances are a major cause of injury
* Lat pulls downs behind the neck are dangerous
* Ballistic movements are dangerous
* Plyometrics are dangerous
We have heard all of these proclamations - what else is new? There is a list
of over 200 such myths and misbeliefs in my book "Facts & Fallacies of
Fitness", so the above few examples are by no means even vaguely complete -
and I am sure than many of you could add your own real gems.
Although in several cases there are indeed exercises that tend to be more
demanding or skillful than others and therefore carry a higher risk of injury
for the average person, it is incorrect to maintain that a given exercise is
dangerous, bad or inadvisable. To a large extent, the risks attached to any
exercise (and that even includes the most basic acts of sitting, standing,
walking and running) are also the result of poor technique.
Nobody has been able to furnish any documented scientific or clinical
evidence that the lat pulldown behind the head per se is a dangerous exercise
and that it constitutes a significant cause of shoulder injury. All that we
have seen are opinions or theoretical attempts to justify opinions on the
basis of personal interpretations of apparently relevant functional
biomechanics.
This lack of any compelling evidence is not unexpected, since cause of injury
is not just a matter of alleged muscle imbalances (though sometimes these may
occur) or the inherent risks of certain exercises. Injury may be due to
several factors, including (Siff & Verkhoshansky "Supertraining" 1999 Ch 8):
* faulty technique for that individual
* the after-effects of preceding exercises
* the presence of fatigue in stabilising or synergistic muscles
* loss of concentration or motivation
* the existence of spurious, "non-functional" muscle tension
* the use of inappropriate soft tissues (e.g. ligaments) to control a
movement
* excessive loading
* excessively long loading
* inappropriate patterns of movement
* excessive acceleration or deceleration at a during a given phase of an
exercise
* inappropriate breath control for stabilisation or mobilisation
For these and other reasons, one needs to be very cautious in claiming that a
given exercise is inherently dangerous for everyone or stating that
traditional isolationist or isokinetic muscle tests will help reveal who is
susceptible to certain types of injury.
For instance, a few training colleagues and I used to do lat pulldowns behind
the neck with around 120kg or 264lbs for 3 sets of 10 reps quite often and
never ever experienced problems with our shoulders. Of course, I would be
the first to admit that we paid careful attention to technique, loading and
focus. I also did explosive, ballistic standing presses with between 115-122
kg (240-270lbs) for many years (and I still do), at least twice a week, using
the classical two phase back bend style (double 'hyperextension') and never
ever experienced the oft-predicted back trauma - nor did any others who
competed in this lift with or against me during all that time.
This does not mean that we totally refuted all negative criticism and that
the standing press or lat pulldowns behind the neck are very safe with even
large loads - it just illustrates that most exercises can be done safely or
unsafely by a given individual at a given time. Blanket rules and
soothsayers of doom are just waiting to be proved wrong every step of the
way. Let us just remember that there are general guidelines for every
exercise, but that these need to be applied in the context of the individual,
the situation and the timing. After all, rules are just waiting to be ruled
against!
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|