FELDENKRAIS

A manual to help you get the best results from
the Awareness Through Movement lessons

Do everything very slowly

I do not intend to "teach" you, but to enable you to learn at your own rate of understanding and doing. Time is the most important means of learning. To enable everybody-without exception-to learn, there should be plenty of time for everybody to assimilate the idea of the movement as well as the leisure to get used to the novelty of the situation. There should be sufficient time to perceive, and organize oneself. No one can learn when hurried and hustled. Each movement is, therefore, allotted sufficient time for repeating it a number of times. Thus, you will repeat the movement as many times as it suits you during the span of time allotted.

When one becomes familiar with an act, speed increases spontaneously, and so does power. This is not so obvious as it is correct.

Efficient movement or performance of any sort is achieved by weeding out, and eliminating, parasitic superfluous exertion. The superfluous is as bad as the insufficient, only it costs more.

No one can learn to ride a bicycle or swim without allowing the time necessary to assimilate the essential, and to reject the unintended and unnecessary, efforts that the beginner performs in his ambition not to feel or appear inadequate to himself.

Fast action at the beginning of learning is synonymous with strain and confusion which, together, make learning an unpleasant exertion.

Look for the pleasant sensation

Pleasure relaxes the breathing to become simple and easy. Excessive striving-to-improve impedes learning. It is less important to learn new feats of skill than it is to master the way to learn new skills. You will get to know new skills as a reward for your attention. You will feel you deserve your acquired skill, and that will add satisfaction to the pleasurable sensation.

Do not "try" to do well

Trying hard means that somehow a person knows that unless he makes a greater effort and applies himself harder he will not achieve his goals. Internal conviction of essential inadequacy is at the root of the urge to try as hard as one can, even when learning. Only when we have learned to write fluently and pleasurably can we write as fast as we wish, or more beautifully. But "trying" to write faster makes the writing illegible and ugly. Learn to do well, but do not try. The countenance of trying hard betrays the inner conviction of being unable or of not being good enough.

Do not try to do "nicely"

A performance is nice to watch when the person applies himself harmoniously. This means that no part of him is being directed to anything else but the job at the hand. Intent to do nicely when learning introduces disharmony. Some of the attention is misdirected, which introduces self-consciousness instead of awareness. Each and all the parts of ourself should cooperate to the final achievement only to the extent that it is useful. An act becomes nice when we do nothing but the act. Everything we do over and above that, or short of it, destroys harmony.

These courses are made to help you to turn the impossible into the feasible, the difficult into the easy: beautiful to see and lovely to do.

Insist on easy, light movement

We usually learn the hard way. We are taught that trying hard is a virtue in life, and we are misled into believing that trying hard is also a virtue when learning. We see, therefore, a beginner, learning to ride a bicycle or to swim or to learn any skill, making many futile efforts and tiring quickly.

Learning takes place through our nervous system, which is so structured as to detect and select, from among our trials and errors, the more effective trial. We thus gradually eliminate the aimless movements until we find a sufficient body of correct and purposeful components of our final effort. These must be right in timing and direction at the same instant. In short, we gradually learn to know what is the better move. Thus it dawns on us that moving the handlebar so as to twist the front wheel in the direction in which we tend to fall stabilizes us on the bicycle. Or that if we move our arms and legs slowly forward in the swimming direction and rapidly in the other direction we actually swim easier and faster. We sense differences and select the good from the useless: that is, we differentiate.

Without distinguishing and differentiating, we perpetuate-and possibly fuse-the good and the bad moves in a haphazard order as they happen to occur and make little or no progress in spite of diligent insistence.

It is easier to tell differences when the effort is light

All our senses are so built that we can distinguish minute differences when our senses are only slightly stimulated. If I were to carry a heavy load (say a refrigerator) on my back, I could not tell if a box of matches were added to the load, nor would I become aware of it being removed. What is, in fact, the weight that must be added or removed to make one aware that some change of effort has occurred? For muscular efforts or our kinesthetic sense, that weight is about one-fortieth (1/40) of the basic effort for very good nervous systems. On carrying 400 pounds, we can tell at once when 10 pounds are added or removed from the load. On carrying 40 pounds, we can tell a change of one pound. And everybody can tell with closed eyes when a fly alights on a thin matchlike piece of wood or straw, or when it takes to the air again.

In short, the smaller the exertion, the finer the increment or decrement that we can distinguish and, also, the finer our differentiation (that is, the mobilization of our muscles in consequence of our sensations). The lighter the effort we make, the faster is our learning of any skill; and the level of perfection we can attain goes hand in hand with the finesse we obtain. We stop improving when we sense no difference in the effort made or in the movement.

Learning and life are not the same thing

In the course of our lives, we may be called upon to make enormous efforts-sometimes beyond what we believe we can produce. There are situations in which we must pay no heed to what the enormous effort entails. We often have to sacrifice our health, the wholeness of our limbs and body, to save our life. Obviously, then, we must be able to act swiftly and powerfully. The question is, wouldn't we be better equipped for such emergencies by making our efforts efficient in general, thus enabling us to exert ourselves less and achieve our purpose economically.

Learning must be slow an varied in effort until the parasitic efforts are weeded out; then we have little difficulty in acting fast, and powerfully.

Why bother to be so efficient?

We need not be intelligent, for God saves the fool. We need not be skillful, for even the clumsiest of us succeeds in the end. We need not be efficient, because a kilogram of sugar yields-roughly speaking-20.000 calories, and one gram calorie produces 426 kilograms of work. From that count, we can waste energy galore. Why go to such troubles as learning and improving? The trouble lies in that energy cannot be destroyed; it can only be transformed into movement, or into another form of energy.

What, then, happens to the energy that is not transformed into movement? It is, obviously, not lost, but remains somewhere in the body. Indeed, it is transformed into heat through the wear and tear of the muscles (torn muscles, muscle catarrh) and of the ligaments and the interarticular surfaces of our joints and vertebrae. So long as we are very young, the healing and recovery powers of our bodies are sufficient to repair the damage caused by inefficient efforts, but they do so at the expense of our heart and the cleansing mechanisms of our organism. But these powers slow, even as early as at our middle age, when we have only just become an adult, and they become sluggish very soon thereafter

If we have not learned efficient action, we are in for aches and pains and for a growing inability to do what we would like to do.

Efficient movement is also pleasant to do and nice to see, and it instills that wonderful feeling of doing well and is, ultimately, aesthetically satisfying.

Do not concentrate

Do not concentrate if concentration means to you directing your attention to one particular important point to the utmost of your ability. This is a particular kind of concentration, useful as an exercise, but rarely in normal occupation and skills.

Suppose you play basketball and concentrate on the basket to the utmost-you will never, or nearly never, have the leisure to do so unless you are alone in front of the basket. When there are two teams playing, the opening for a throw is a short, fleeting instant in which you have to attend not only to the basket, but to the players around you, and to the balance and posture that enable you to perform a useful throw.

The best players are those who attend to the continually changing position of their own players as well as of the opposing team. Most of the time, their concentration is directed to a very large area or space; the basket is just kept dimly in the background of their awareness, from where it can- at the most fleeting opportunity-become the center of attention.

The best and most useful attention is similar to what we do when reading. When we see the whole page, we cannot perceive any of the content, although we can say whether the page is in English or some language we cannot read. To read, we must focus on a minute portion of the page, not even a full line-perhaps, merely a single word, if it is a familiar one and rather short. If we are a skillful reader, we keep on picking our word after word, or groupings of words, to be attended to by our macular vision, which is only a minute portion of the retina, with sufficient good resolution to see small print clearly.

The good way of using our attention is, for the most part, similar to reading. One should perceive the background (the whole page) dimly and learn to focus sharply on the point-attended (concentration) rapidly before the next so that reading fluently means reading 200 to 1000 words a minute, as some people can.

Therefore, do not concentrate but, rather, attend well to the entire situation, your body, and your surroundings by scanning the whole sufficiently to become aware of any change or difference, concentrating just enough to perceive it.

In general, it is not what we do that is important, but how we do it. Thus, we can refuse kindly and accept ungraciously. We must also remember that this generalization is not a law and, like other generalizations, it is not always true.

We do not say at the start what the final stage will be

We are so drilled or wired-in by prevailing educational methods that when we know what is required of us, we go all-out to achieve it, for fear of loss of face, regardless of what it costs us to do so. We have it instilled in our system that we must not be the worst of the lot. We will bite our lips, hold our breath, and screw up our straining self in an ugly way in order to achieve something if we have no clear idea of how to mobilize ourselves for that task. The result is excessive effort, harmful strain, and ugly performance. The Awareness Through Movement® lessons will help you to reach your inborn potentiality in the best way and avoid giving you just another opportunity for using yourself in the accustomed way which led you, initially, to seek a better one.

By reducing the urge to achieve, and attending also to the means for achieving, we learn easier. Achieving-we lose the incentive for learning and, therefore, accept a lower level than the potential we are endowed with. When we delay the final achievement by attending efficiently to our means, we set ourselves a higher level of achievement if we are not aware that that is what we are doing. On knowing what to achieve before we have learned to learn, we can reach only the limit of our ignorance, which is often general. Such limits are intrinsically lower than those we can foresee after knowing better.

Do a little less than you can

By doing a little less than you really can, you will attain a higher performance than the one you can now conceive. Do a little less than your utmost while learning. You are thereby pushing your possible record to a higher setting.

Suppose you have not been running for a few years or that you are a middle-aged adult with the usual spread that goes with it: Suppose that you want to do some running again, and set out to the speed you remember: You will soon find yourself out of breath, your heart pounding, and compelled to stop, only to find that you have not achieved what you intended to achieve. Moreover, you will most likely be stiff all over and find it very difficult to persist in what you set out to do.

Now suppose you make your first attempt a little less fast than the top speed that is possible for you at this moment and, looking at your watch, you find that you are short of what you used to be able to do: But you will feel and think you could have done a little better had you really tried your best: This feeling will lead you to try again. The next attempt will be a little faster anyway, so that, continuing to do a little less than your utmost, you go on improving. In the end, you will in a short time give a better account of yourself than in your younger days when youthful stamina and ambition made you always do your utmost. The wisdom of doing a little less than one really can pushes the record of achievement further and further as you come nearer to it, similar to the horizon that recedes on approaching it.

You will understand now why I say in the lessons "lower your knees in the direction of the floor" rather than "try to touch the floor with your knees." This makes no difference to anyone who is beyond improving; but you will convince yourself that it makes a real difference, reminding you to keep yourself out of stress and give yourself a real chance to learn to learn.

©Feldenkrais Resources, Berkeley, CA

Tabata , Tabata , Tabata

Effects of Moderate-Intensity Endurance and High-Intensity Intermittent Training on Anaerobic Capacity and VO2 Max

Title and Abstract

Tabata I. et. al. Effects of moderate-intensity endurance and high-intensity intermittent training on anaerobic capacity and VO2max. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (1996) 28(10):1327-30.

This study consists of two training experiments using a mechanically braked cycle ergometer. First, the effect of 6 wk of moderate-intensity endurance training (intensity: 70% of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), 60 min.d-1, 5 d.wk-1) on the anaerobic capacity (the maximal accumulated oxygen deficit) and VO2max was evaluated. After the training, the anaerobic capacity did not increase significantly (P > 0.10), while VO2max increased from 53 +/- 5 ml.kg-1 min-1 to 58 +/- 3 ml.kg-1.min-1 (P <>

Background

In recent years, training and the Internets have become interval crazy. Everybody wants to do nothing but interval training all the damn time (with some even proclaiming that any non-interval training is not only useless but downright detrimental).

Now, I’ve written extensively about this in what must be about a 12 part series on Steady State vs. Interval Training here on the site. I’m not going to rehash the entirety of that series, mind you; go read it. But simply, both intervals and steady state have their place in training. Arguments that one is inherently or always superior to the other has more to do with marketing than reality.

But among other aspects of this particular meme, the idea of the Tabata protocol (often abbreviated Tabatas) gets bandied about all the time. And the problem is that people are using the term to describe something that they don’t really understand. What has happened is that a bunch of people who don’t really know what they are talking about have written so much about the protocol that what it actually is or accomplishes has been completely diluted.

So I figured I’d undilute it by actually examining the study that the whole set of claims and supposed ‘protocols’ are based on. Because, as is so often the case, what people think they are doing as ‘Tabatas’ are nothing like what the actual study did. And most people who think they are doing the Tabata protocol are doing absolutely nothing of the sort.

As a bit of history, the protocol was actually originally developed by a Japanese speed skating coach and later studied by researchers; I bring this up because speed skating is actually a very peculiar sport in a lot of ways (something that I have insight into as I’ve spent the last 5 years training full time as a skater). But I’m not going to get that into detail here; I simply mention it for completeness.

The Study

The study set out to compare both the anaerobic and aerobic adaptations (in terms of one parameter only, VO2 max) to two different protocols of training. The study recruited 14 active male students who were, at best moderately trained (VO2 max was roughly 50 ml/kg/min which is average at best; elite endurance athletes have values in the 70-80 range).

All work including the pre- and post tests were done on a mechanically braked bicycle ergometer; this is an important point that is often ignored and I’ll come back to in the discussion. Every test or high-intensity workout was proceeded by a 10 minute warm-up at 50% of VO2 max (This is maybe 60-65% maximum heart rate).

The two primary tests were VO2 max and the maximal accumulated oxygen deficit (this is a test of anaerobic capacity, basically people with higher anaerobic capacity can generate a larger oxygen deficit) and then subjected to one of two training programs.

The first program was a fairly standard aerobic training program, subjects exercised 5 days/week at 70% of VO2 max for 60 minutes at a cadence of 70 RPMs for 6 straight weeks. The intensity of exercise was raised as VO2 max increased with training to maintain the proper percentage. VO2 max was tested weekly in this group and the maximal accumulated oxygen deficit was measured before, at 4 weeks and after training.

The second group performed the Tabata protocol. For four days per week they performed 7-8 sets of 20 seconds at 170% of VO2 max with 10 seconds rest between bouts, again this was done after a 10 minute warm-up. When more than 9 sets could be completed, the wattage was increased by 11 watts. If the subjects could not maintain a cadence of 85RPM, the workout was ended.

On the fifth day of training, they performed 30 minutes of exercise at 70% of VO2 max followed by 4 sets of the intermittent protocol and this session was designed to NOT be exhaustive. The anaerobic capacity test was performed at the beginning, week 2, week 4 and the end of the 6 week period; VO2 max was tested at the beginning and at week 3, 5 and the end of training.

Results

For group 1, the standard aerobic training group, while there was no increase in anaerobic capacity, VO2 max increased significantly from roughly 52 to 57 ml/kg/min (I say roughly because the paper failed to provide vaules, I’m going by what’s in the graphic below). Frankly, given the lack of anaerobic contribution to steady state training, the lack of improvement in this parameter is absolutely no surprise.

For group 2, both the anaerobic capacity and VO2 max showed improvements. VO2 max improved in the interval group from 48 ml/kg/min to roughly 55 ml/kg/min (see graphic below). It is worth noting that the interval group was starting with a lower value and may have had more room for improvement. Also note that they still ended up with a lower Vo2 max than the steady state group.

I’ve put Figure 2 from the paper (showing improvements in VO2 max) below

Click to Enlarge

As I noted, pay attention to the fact that the Tabata group (black line, filled circles) started lower than the steady state group, they also still ended up lower than the steady state group. As well, note that pattern of improvement, the Tabata group got most of their improvement in the first 3 weeks and far less in the second three weeks. The steady state group showed more gradual improvement across the entire 6 week period but it was more consistent. As the researchers state regarding the Tabata group

After 3 wk of training, the VO2 max had increased significantly by 5+-3ml.kg/min. It tended to increase in the last part of the training period but no significant changes[emphasis mine] were observed.

Basically, the Tabata group improved for 3 weeks and then plateaued despite a continuingly increasing workload. I’d note that anaerobic capacity did improve over the length of the study although most of the benefit came in the first 4 weeks of the study (with far less over the last 2 weeks).

My Comments

First and foremost, there’s no doubt that while the steady state group only improved VO2 max, it did not improve anaerobic capacity; this is no shock based on the training effect to be expected. And while the Tabata protocol certainly improved both, not only did the Tabata group still end up with a lower VO2 at the end of the study, they only made progress for 3 weeks before plateauing on VO2 max and 4 weeks for anaerobic capacity.

Interestingly, the running coach Arthur Lydiard made this observation half a century ago; after months of base training, he found that only 3 weeks of interval work were necessary to sharpen his athletes. More than that was neither necessary nor desirable. Other studies using cycling have found similar results: intervals improve certain parameters of athletic performance for about 3 weeks or 6 sessions and then they stop having any further benefit.

I’ve asked this question before but for all of the ‘All interval all the time’ folks, if intervals stop working after 3-4 weeks, what are people supposed to do for the other 48-49 weeks of the year. Should they keep busting their nuts with supra-maximal interval training for no meaningful results?

On that note, it’s worth mentioning that the Tabata group actually did a single steady state workout per week. Is it at all possible that this contributed to the overall training effect (given that 70% VO2 max training improved VO2 max in the steady state only group)? Does anybody else find it weird that the Tabata promoters ignore the fact that the Tabata group was doing steady state work too?

It’s also relevant to note that the study used a bike for training. This is important and here’s why: on a stationary bike, when you start to get exhausted and fall apart from fatigue, the worst that happens is that you stop pedalling. You don’t fall off, you don’t get hurt, nothing bad happens. The folks suggesting high skill movements for a ‘Tabata’ workout might want to consider that. Because when form goes bad on cleans near the end of the ‘Tabata’ workout, some really bad things can happen. Things that don’t happen on a stationary bike.

As well, I want to make a related comment: as you can see above the protocol used was VERY specific. The interval group used 170% of VO2 max for the high intensity bits and the wattage was increased by a specific amount when the workout was completed. Let me put this into real world perspective.

My VO2 max occurs somewhere between 300-330watts on my power bike, I can usually handle that for repeat sets of 3 minutes and maybe 1 all out-set of 5-8 minutes if I’m willing to really suffer. That’s how hard it is, it’s a maximal effort across that time span.

For a proper Tabata workout, 170% of that wattage would be 510 watts (for perspective, Tour De France cyclists may maintain 400 watts for an hour). This is an absolutely grueling workload. I suspect that most reading this, unless they are a trained cyclist, couldn’t turn the pedals at that wattage, that’s how much resistance there is.

If you don’t believe me, find someone with a bike with a powermeter and see how much effort it takes to generate that kind of power output. Now do it for 20 seconds. Now repeat that 8 times with a 10 second break. You might learn something about what a Tabata workout actually is.

My point is that to get the benefits of the Tabata protocol, the workload has to be that supra-maximal for it to be effective. Doing thrusters or KB swings or front squats with 65 lbs fo 20 seconds doesn’t generate nearly the workload that was used during the actual study. Nor will it generate the benefits (which I’d note again stop accruing after a mere 3 weeks). You can call them Tabatas all you want but they assuredly aren’t.

Finally, I’d note that, as I discussed in Predictors of Endurance Performance VO2 max is only one of many components of overall performance, and it’s not even the most important one. Of more relevance here, VO2 max and aerobic endurance are not at all synonymous, many people confuse the two because they don’t understand the difference between aerobic power (VO2 max) and aerobic capacity (determined primarily by enzyme activity and mitochondrial density within the muscle). Other studies have shown clearly that interval work and steady state work generate different results in this regards, intervals improve VO2 max but can actually decrease aerobic enzyme activity (citrate synthase) within skeletal muscle.

The basic point being that even if the Tabata group improved VO2 max and anaerobic capacity to a greater degree than the steady state group, those are not the only parameters of relevance for overall performance.

Summing Up

First, here’s what I’m not saying. I’m not anti-interval training, I’m not anti-high intensity training. I am anti-this stupid-assed idea that the only type of training anyone should ever do is interval training, based on people’s mis-understanding and mis-extrapolation of papers like this.

High-intensity interval training and the Tabata protocol specifically are one tool in the toolbox but anybody proclaiming that intervals can do everything that anyone ever needs to do is cracked. That’s on top of the fact that 99% of people who claim to be doing ‘Tabatas’ aren’t doing anything of the sort.

Because 8 sets of 20″ hard/10″ easy is NOT the Tabata protocol and body-weight stuff or the other stuff that is often suggested simply cannot achieve the workload of 170% VO2 max that this study used. It may be challenging and such but the Tabata protocol it ain’t.

Joint friendy movements

Everyone knows the best lifts for building strength, size, and sport-specific power. But what if you can't squat because you have bum knees? What if you can't do bench presses and/or overhead lifts because of lingering shoulder injuries? What if your bad back makes deadlifts a bad idea?

I've worked with lots of athletes over the years with the issues I just described, and I've found alternative exercises that helped them get bigger and stronger. I'm able to do this with a concept I call joint-friendly lifting.

Joint-friendly lifts are simply creative variations that aren't as hard on the joints as their traditional counterparts. They allow serious lifters and athletes to work around their limitations without compromising the results they get from their training.

Before I get into the specific exercises, I want to wave the obligatory caution flag: Before switching out the tried-and-true lifts for the ones I show here, make sure the aches and pains you have aren't caused by suboptimal exercise technique, poor program design, or too much training with too little recovery.

I also want to mention an article I wrote a few months ago called "Making Gains with Pain." Today's article shows you how to work around your pain and limitations. The earlier piece shows you how to alleviate that pain. I know I'm biased, but I recommend it as a complement to the one you're about to read.

Joint-Friendly Lifts

The problem: back pain caused by disc issues prevents you from loading your spine with a barbell or dumbbells on traditional squats

The solution: one-legged squat off a bench or step

The kettlebell folks have popularized the pistol squat (shown below). But I rarely use pistols with my athletes, especially those with back pain related to disc problems, since they force a lot of unnecessary spinal flexion. Also, pistols don't allow the glutes to activate as much as the variation shown above due to the position of the torso. Glute activation is important, since it helps reduce the load on the spine and increases stabilization of the knee joint.

The best way to add load to a one-legged squat is to put on a weight vest. This will increase the intensity of the exercise without adding stress to your bad back.

The problem: back and/or knee pain

The solution: sled work

I absolutely love sled training. I use it with just about everyone who walks through our doors. It's especially valuable for those who have knee problems and those who have back trouble. I've found these athletes can move heavy loads on the sled with no added stress on their painful areas.

My favorite sled exercises:

Sled dragging

Sled dragging with the hand position shown in the photo below is much safer than using a waist or shoulder harness for people who have back issues. Be sure to maintain good spinal alignment, and don't allow your arms to move away from your sides.

Sled pulling

This is a great way to blast your quads if you have knee problems and can't do squats, lunges, or leg extensions. It's also a valuable exercise for knee rehab, thanks to the terminal knee-extension action it requires.

No sled? No problem — just get a big tire from a junkyard.

While I'm on the subject of tires, I should mention that tire flips, as performed in the example shown below, are not a joint-friendly lift. Even if you have the hip mobility to get low enough to maintain a neutral spine — an ability that eludes 90 percent of serious lifters, I'd estimate — this exercise still puts a serious amount of stress on your lower back.

I'm not saying tire flips are a bad exercise. But I am predicting that many of the people who do them will end up paying for some back surgeon's new Porsche. There are no bad exercises, just bad applications.

Sled/plate pushing

This is another of our go-to exercises for building strength and increasing work capacity without putting excess stress on the knees and backs of our athletes.

You want to keep your back straight, with your hips more or less level to your shoulders. Athletes with bad backs need to be especially cognizant of their back position, maintaining a neutral spine and avoiding spinal flexion as they step forward.

For building strength, stack up a sled and push it for 20 to 40 yards. To improve conditioning, use a plate push (as shown above) for 50 to 100 yards.

The problem: disc herniation, or any other back injury that prevents you from doing deadlifts, hyperextensions, or reverse hypers.

The solution: one-leg hip lift with weight plate

As with sled dragging, this is another exercise we use with almost everyone we train. But it's especially valuable for athletes and clients who need posterior-chain work but can't do the traditional hip-extension exercises.

Hold as much weight as you can without discomfort on top of your shin, as shown below.

The movement is straightforward. With the heel of your working leg on a bench or step, contract your glutes and hamstrings to elevate your hips off the floor, until your body forms a straight line from the knee of your working leg to your shoulders. Do all your reps with that leg, then switch.

The problem: an injury that puts stress on the shoulder joint during press-type movements

The solution: floor press

By limiting the range of motion, the floor press also limits stress on the injured shoulder. Many of our athletes who experience pain during and after bench presses find they can floor press big weights without discomfort.

The problem: shoulder pain limits or prevents overhead lifts like the shoulder press and push jerk

The solution: angled shoulder press

The reason it works for people who can't perform overhead lifts is simple: It's not overhead. It allows heavy loads and, as a bonus, requires the core muscles to control and resist rotation throughout the range of motion.

One key to performing the angled press is keeping your forearm perpendicular to the barbell, as shown below.

The problem: shoulder pain prevents external shoulder rotation when the arms are overhead in exercises like the pull-up and lat pulldown

The solution: angled lat pulldown

This is, as you probably guessed, the pulling version of the angled shoulder press. And like that exercise, it forces your core muscles to work as you struggle to stay upright as the weight pulls you forward. Execution is simple enough: stand in front of the lat-pulldown station and pull the bar to your upper chest.

Final Thoughts

You've heard this one hundreds of times: "Train smarter, not harder." In my opinion, the saying should be updated to this: "Train smarter and harder."

If you currently suffer from back, knee, and/or shoulder pain, you have no choice but to train smarter than the average lifter in your gym. But you also need to train harder to recover from your injury, and to prevent a recurrence. With joint-friendly lifts, it's possible to do both.

But even if you have no injuries, joint-friendly lifts are a pretty good way to help you maintain that winning streak. Not only are they easier on your most vulnerable joints, they provide new, interesting, and challenging ways to build muscle and improve your strength, athleticism, and work capacity.

Assuming, of course, you're interesting in that sort of thing...