 |
 |
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] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%