Why is our instinct to brace for impact when falling, getting punched, getting into a car accident, etc., when going limp causes less injury/damage to the body?
In: 65
It doesn’t always.
Naturally, tensing up was part of our fight or flight reaction. It was a means of engaging muscles, altering blood flow, producing hormones, all things that would help us survive a fight. Since it worked, we survived the fight, those genes got passed on.
That same reaction tied over to any sort of panic, say, falling off a cliff. In that case, you were pretty much dead or survived, anyway. Being tense or not being tense wasn’t the controlling factor, so it didn’t play into evolution to adapt one way or the other.
So we have the trait, tensing happens, but in a car crash for example, we’ve engineering a “soft and safe” system. Going floppy in a car helps because you’re going floppy into cushions, an air bag, and a seat belt. If you tense up you can cause internal damage to organs, bones, blood vessels etc.
Long story short – we evolved going tense because it helped us survive in times when survival depending on tensing up. In situations where it didn’t help, it didn’t matter so no further traits were developed. In our modern world we are basically “post evolution” so the old traits don’t help us like our evolution taught us.
I think it’s important to point out that “bracing” yourself just means to “prepare” yourself. If you were to consciously go limp when hit as a Quarterback, for example, you’d have to “brace for impact” in order to do that in the first place.
The answer to your question I think Is that becoming tense and tightening up is part of our natural fight/flight response. If you are falling down, it is natural to throw your hands up in a surprised manner, trying to break your fall. You can’t do anything while your falling or approaching a crash but understand it is happening, and you are reacting to that stress.
can you link your evidence?
I have heard many times that bracing the right way can minimize injury when falling or getting punched.
It is different when you are in a car, since airbags and seats themselves will protect you better if you keep your hands down and your body against the back of the seat.
This is a myth that keeps getting thrown about around the topic of drunk drivers.
The claim goes that the drunk driver is more likely to survive a crash that the other people involved. Apparently this is because the drunk driver went limp while the occupants of the other vehicles braced themselves because they were not drunk.
It really is a baseless claim because the statistics used here fail to mention a lot of things.
First off, it is just a comparison between the deaths caused by drunk driving compared to the drunk driver. However, this includes pedestrians who obviously lose to cars.
Another thing to remember is that cars always have the most protection for the driver, as it is assumed there is always someone in that seat. So one driver on their own vs a full car, it is not surprising that the passengers get hurt more. Incidentally, if there are drunk passengers of the drunk drivers car, they are the most likely to get killed or injured in a collision with another vehicle, directly disproving your claim.
Next time you fall over, see if it hurts more to faceplant concrete or throw your arms up in front.
Punching? Try watching the replay of the Tyson Fury vs Dillian Whyte to see what happens when you don’t prepare for being punched.
I think this may largely be a myth.
However bracing or being limp during a car crash for example could potentially lead to different injuries.
When braced all the muscles are contracted, and stiff. This will help protect the underlying joints and ligaments however the potential for muscular injury is high.
When limp, the muscles do not engage and therefore do not protect the joints and ligaments resulting in ligaments injury, and dislocations.
Interestingly muscles recover much quicker from injury than ligaments do and are generally less severe injuries.
So I would argue that bracing for impact, especially in a MVA is always the better option.
Because it doesn’t result in fewer injuries? Where is that coming from.
Bracing and protecting from damage is a vital part of surviving many dangers. If someone wants to punch you and you take that in your chin instead of covering with your hands or forearms you might get knocked out.
If someone tries to stab you, way more likely to survive with a lot of cuts to your hands instead of your torso.
I guess I am not sure about ejecting from a car, but you likely survive better by not falling on your head.
On an airplane, bracing yourself includes leaning forward as far as you can go while seated. If you happen to survive the impact, sitting straight up would increase the chances of your heart becoming detached from your body internally.
I think it’s a logical but unproven line of thought that says going limp is better. We probably instinctively will sacrifice a limb to save our core, face and head. if you go limp you won’t complain about your dislocated shoulder but maybe you’ll be dead?
Because we aren’t evolved to survive car accidents.
As others have pointed out, the science on if going limp in a high speed accident is shaky, but let’s assume it is safer for the sake of argument. That *doesn’t* apply to taking punches or short falls. Tensing up does help there, and thus evolution encourages it as a response. Humans have only been encountering high speed collisions where going limp is (maybe) safer for ~150 years; that’s far to short a time for a “limp” response to be evolutionarily favored, especially given how small the effect would be (assuming there is one at all).
Latest Answers