© 2006 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/the-good-and-bad-of-acute-stress-response/
This article is marked as 'retired'. The information here may be out of date, incomplete, and/or incorrect.
Way, way back in the yesterday of yon, man sought to eke out his pitiful existence among the prehistoric rocks of the world. Whilst rummaging among the rubble for a bit of scrumptious sustenance, it was quite possible that, in turning the corner of a large boulder, he would meet something unexpected and potentially dangerous, like a saber-tooth tiger, a woolly mammoth, or his mother-in-law. All, or any, of these could have produced a life saving mechanism in the human body known as “acute stress response” or the Fight or Flight response.
The acute stress response is the body’s way of instantly preparing to react to a perceived or real threat. Whether it’s to attack the source of fear, or to run from it, the body leaps into this mode. Walter Cannon, a life-long friend of Ivan Pavlov (of Pavlov’s dog fame), was one of the first to study this reaction. He proposed it was hard-wired into us. The key difference was if the surprise stimuli caused a reaction of fear or anger. Fear would result in flight, while anger would result in fight.
The brain’s hypothalamus reacts to this stimuli by triggering the release of several chemicals into the bloodstream; adrenaline (Cannon’s hormone of fight or flight) , noradrenaline, and cortisol. Respiration increases and the heart starts pumping two or three times faster providing oxygen rich blood to the limbs, eyes dilate increasing sight, hearing is increased, capillaries close increasing blood pressure to allow one to live even if wounded. Unnecessary functions like digestion and sexual function are terminated to provide blood to other parts. The brain fires signals faster making you more alert and responsive. Unfortunately, the body also may release bladder and bowel control to make you lighter.
In seconds the body is a well-oiled reactionary machine and is ready for whatever comes next. This state of heightened function expends a huge amount of energy and can’t be sustained for long. In addition, long term exposure to stress hormones is not good for us.
So although we have moved several million years away from the cave, the response remains. Remember how you felt when your mom caught you with your hand in the cookie jar? Or after that near miss on the freeway? What about people lifting a car off a loved one in a panic?
It’s not all good however. Your body can have such a response when doing things like talking to your boss or going out on date. Too much of the wrong stimuli can be a bad thing causing heart disease, sexual dysfunction, high blood pressure, and immune deficiencies. A short while ago, DamnInteresting.com produced an article on The Jumping Frenchman of Maine Disorder which causes a different response to stress, like convulsions.
Although exercise is a well-known way to reduce stress, a new report by Princeton University says that running alone can ADD to stress. The study concluded that running causes the release of corticosterone— a stress managing hormone— into the brain, which inhibits the growth of more brain cells. On the flip side, running increases our spacial orientation and neuron communication. The study tested rats running alone and in groups and concluded that running in groups decreased the adverse effects. Maybe it’s another hard wired response making it safer to flee in groups?
A Harvard cardiologist, Herbert Benson, has developed a theory to combat the fight or flight response when unnecessary by producing a relaxation response, that is, causing the body to release neurochemicals to counteract the others. Dr. Benson believes that the relaxation response is as hard wired as the acute stress response and therefore is as easy to trigger.
The simplest way to trigger it is thus:
- Focus on a word or phrase that has a positive meaning to you. Such words as “one,” “love” and “peace” work well.
- When you find your mind has wandered or you notice any intrusive thoughts entering your mind, simply disregard them and return your focus to the word or phrase you chose.
Dr. Benson recommends practicing this for 10-15 minutes twice a day. The benefits are lower blood pressure, reduced stress, tranquility, etc. You can further this by repeating your relaxation word while exercising, yoga, deep breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, meditation, singing or chanting your word, etc.
It’s a fine line to walk. I want to keep my quick responses for the next time I meet a 10-foot angry prehistoric sloth, but I also don’t want to wet myself the next time I go on a date. Maybe I should stop dating 10-foot angry prehistoric sloths.
© 2006 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/the-good-and-bad-of-acute-stress-response/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
Once again, a genius was at work in the image department. And I’m gonna try this relaxation technique, it seems to make sense.
Someone asked if I had doctored the first image…but it came from an article about an LOTR movie premiere. As far as I know, its legit.
I totally thought the sentence “Remember when your mom caught you with your hand in…” was going to end quite differently than “the cookie jar.” I run Windows 98 at 800×600 resolution and the sentence cut off at the first half I placed in quotes, so my brain, quickly as could be, conjured up the rest of the sentence for me, and it wasn’t “the cookie jar.” Haha. But anyways, good article, that relaxation technique does indeed work for me.
The wording of the second paragraph is misleading. It should not say “Walter Cannon, a life-long friend of Ivan Pavlov (i.e. Pavlov’s dog), was one of the first to study this reaction.”
Walter Cannon was not Pavlov’s dog, though Pavlov’s dog may have been a lifelong friend. Rather, it should say “Ivan Pavlov (famed for ‘Pavlov’s dog’)” or something to that effect.
I agree. It did sound like Pavlov had Walter drooling at the sound of a bell.
Awesome images as well, and I loved the conclusion.
APA7HY said: “I totally thought the sentence “Remember when your mom caught you with your hand in…” was going to end quite differently than “the cookie jar.”
as much as i hate to admit it, i came to that very same conclusion lol…
Berkana said: “The wording of the second paragraph is misleading. It should not say “Walter Cannon, a life-long friend of Ivan Pavlov (i.e. Pavlov’s dog), was one of the first to study this reaction.”
Walter Cannon was not Pavlov’s dog, though Pavlov’s dog may have been a lifelong friend. Rather, it should say “Ivan Pavlov (famed for ‘Pavlov’s dog’)” or something to that effect.”
Thanks for clearing that up… I wasn’t sure what he was trying to say there. To be honest, I’m still a little unclear on what Pavlov’s dog is but thats just simple ignorance on my part. Great article Josh. I give it a 9.95.
Pavlov’s dog was a dog trained to salivate at the sound of a bell. The bell was associated with food over a period of time and the dog learned what it meant. It’s called “conditioned response.”
As far as I know, evolution is still a theory and not a proven fact. Those millions of years in caves is all speculation. You may disagree and I will fight for your right to do so, but allow me the freedom to think for myself also.
What is the problem with using the same anti-biotics or bug killer too much? They become immune, you say.
not really. some individuals are already immune and they survive and continue the species. The bug has adapted to an adverse environment.
And what do we call this process? It’s not a theory if it happens before your eyes…
mudpuppy555 said: “As far as I know, evolution is still a theory and not a proven fact. Those millions of years in caves is all speculation. You may disagree and I will fight for your right to do so, but allow me the freedom to think for myself also.”
i agree. everyone should be allowed to think for themselves… even people who are incapable of analytical thinking and therefore swallow whatever absurd tripe is fed to them by their religious leaders. evidence is for pussies!
mudpuppy555 said: “As far as I know, evolution is still a theory and not a proven fact. Those millions of years in caves is all speculation. You may disagree and I will fight for your right to do so, but allow me the freedom to think for myself also.”
As far as I know, this was an article about acute stress response. Think about the relevance of your comment to the topic. I will fight for your right to believe whatever you want, but allow me the freedom of reading thoughts that actually pertain to the subject.
mudpuppy555 said: “As far as I know, evolution is still a theory and not a proven fact. Those millions of years in caves is all speculation. You may disagree and I will fight for your right to do so, but allow me the freedom to think for myself also.”
For those the believe in the bible do you really think Adam and Eve didn’t live in a cave at least a little while. God didn’t make them a nice spacious house when they were cast out of Eden. They had to live somewhere while they worked out shelter and a cave would be just as likely as anything else. Evidence shows that people lived in caves at various points in history. I don’t know my bible very well but I believe there are even a few passages about people seeking shelter in caves and such. Believing that people lived in caves at times doesn’t mean that you believe in evolution.
I would also like to point out that the article doesn’t say we lived in caves for millions of years. It says we have moved several million years away from the cave. If your going to get your panties in a bunch over something at least having the reading comprehension skills to get it in a bunch over the right thing.
mudpuppy555 said: “As far as I know, evolution is still a theory and not a proven fact. Those millions of years in caves is all speculation. You may disagree and I will fight for your right to do so, but allow me the freedom to think for myself also.”
So I suppose from a Christian perspective you don’t agree with the mention of millions of years because it contradicts with the creationist view that the Earth was created in September or October 4004 BC?:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_Creation).
I don’t mind if people have religious beliefs but why come on a scientifically-based educatory website and start questioning a theory that is backed up by extensive evidence with the writings of an ancient text? As Superintendent Chalmers said, “God has no place in school just as facts have no place in organised religion!”
Chalmers probably one of the more intelligent Simpsons denizens (“The Aurora Borrealis… just in your kitchen..”)
Robert Sapolsky of Stanford did a lot of work on stress and the damage it does to brain/body.
Okay, I can’t resist a good argument about science vs. religion.
First, there are six types of evolution. Cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic, macro, and micro. Only the last, micro-evolution (changes within a given species) has any concrete scientific evidence. The rest is speculation, pure and simple, which is why whether you take a religious or humanist world-view is a matter of faith (wouldn’t make much sense for free will if there wasn’t another option, would it?). I could go on for days about the scientific evidence in concordance with ancient teachings across a variety of religions, the Torah in particular, but I will leave it for now that no one has ever witnessed a dog produce a non-dog, a cat produce a non-cat, or a virus mutate into anthing other than well, another virus. Why do we presume that a set of bones in the dirt can do something that we don not see today? Rather files in the face of uniformitarianism, doesn’t it? Hey, let’s get the apes to “evolve” into people again, but let’s watch this time!
If you choose to believe in evolution or religion, or both for the Day-Age crowd, all the more power to you and I would die to defend your right to do so. But in the interest of being fair, do not be so condescending to others for having a conflicting view when your own has so many flaws. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks, and we are all surrounded with silicon, my friend.
mudpuppy555 said: “As far as I know, evolution is still a theory and not a proven fact. Those millions of years in caves is all speculation. You may disagree and I will fight for your right to do so, but allow me the freedom to think for myself also.”
Personally, I am quite religious and believe wholeheartedly in intelligent design, realizing that evolution exists and has its place as a tool in the hands of the Almighty. As a writer on the site, I have to remain neutral or more liberal than I am in actuality. The acute stress response is a good bit of good design regardless.
ShenWolf said: “Okay, I can’t resist a good argument about science vs. religion.
First, there are six types of evolution. Cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic, macro, and micro. Only the last, micro-evolution (changes within a given species) has any concrete scientific evidence. The rest is speculation, pure and simple, which is why whether you take a religious or humanist world-view is a matter of faith (wouldn’t make much sense for free will if there wasn’t another option, would it?). “
I have a few problems with your response:
– As far as I can tell, only intelligent design people talk about the ‘six types’. Please don’t put words in the mouths of others – even (micro/macro) evolution was only an incidental issue here, none of the rest.
– There is lots of evidence for macro evolution (not to mention some of the other ‘evolutions’). You can’t just make the evidence disappear by saying “the rest is speculation”.
I am, by most peoples standard, quite religious, and yet believe in (macro) evolution. That doesn’t contradict my belief in God. Quite the contrary, I think it is ingenious.
P.S. Maybe I’m just dense, but I completely fail to understand your comment on free will.
Of course you’re all free to believe in whatever you want to believe in, but I’d just like to correct a common misconception that was raised above:
mudpuppy555 said: “As far as I know, evolution is still a theory and not a proven fact. […]”
Scoffing at evolution because it’s “just a theory” is misusing the terminology. It’s a *scientific* theory, which is something quite different. Quoth Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Further_explanation_of_a_scientific_theory):
[…] in common usage a theory is defined as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is not considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know.
God’s existence is not a scientific theory because it cannot be disproved. Conversely, God’s non-existence is also not a scientific theory, because it too cannot be disproved. In other words, God’s existence cannot be proved or disproved, and so it has nothing to do with science. The same argument holds for intelligent design, since ID is simply a restating of belief in God that is compatible with existing scientific theories. By the above definition, intelligent design is not a scientific theory (as it can’t be disproven, since it reduces to the assertion that “God exists”, which cannot be proven or disproven). That doesn’t mean you can’t believe in it – hey, go ahead, what you believe is up to you – but it does mean that it is a *belief*. Not a fact, not a theory, but a *belief*. That’s why I personally have little patience with anyone who pushes for ID to be taught in schools as part of “science”. It’s not science. It’s religion. The two are not incompatible, but they are not the same thing. You might as well start teaching Japanese grammar in Physical Education class, it would make about as much sense.
As for the “six types of evolution”, WTF? I’ve never even heard of that. Stop putting words in evolutionists’ mouths, please.
Two things, first a little comment regarding the evolution thing, then a bit of humor. Evolution is a “theory” just as gravity is a “theory”… we know gravity exists, it is definite and undeniable, however our description of it is not necessarily correct and that is the part that is “theory”. Now, evolution doesn’t have quite the evidential backing that gravity does, but there is still enough that it is regarded as fact by the majority of people who are open to science. We still have the “theory”, though, because we don’t know for certain that our understanding and description of it are correct. Now maybe God controls both gravity and evolution, or maybe God doesn’t exist, but that has nothing to do with the science of the matter. Teach your children what you wish, take them to church or keep them at home, petition your school for a theology class in addition to a science class, but please, PLEASE, do not try to combine the two. Thank you.
Now, getting back to the actual story, here’s a bit of humor from the realm of anatomy. In school we studied the fight or flight response, which is the sympathetic nervous system, and the feed or breed response, which is the parasympathetic system. These two systems fall under the larger category of the autonomic nervous system. So, anatomists say the the autonomic nervous system controls the Four Fs: Fighting, Fleeing, Feeding, and Sexual Reproduction.
And you didn’t think anatomists could be funny.
“…we can never assume we know all there is to know.”
– OK, my turn.
We all tend to re-examine our foundational beliefs from time to time. I wonder how solid some foundations are out there, though. I see quick knee-jerk attacks on evolution in all its forms. I see pulses quicken when that “safe haven” of evolution is opened up and examined.
Evolution is great, you can hide behind it and say God doesn’t exist. Place your faith in evolutionary theories and you get to discard all relgious/ethical training. Woohoo! Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die. But without rules (foundations for living) all would be anarchy. Some people are anarchists, but I wouldn’t hire one as a babysitter.
It seems everyone is seeking additional tidbits of truth for their daily stores of knowledge, or they would not be coming to this site. I applaud everybody in stopping by, and suggest that “all truth is God’s truth.” God cannot go against science, nor science against God. Bad science has killed multitudes, and false gods have also left multitudes dead. That being said, here are just a few questions good to mull over:
– Can one only believe in what he or she can observe with five senses or the scientific approach?
– If God existed, could God have created an old earth? Why might this God want to do such a thing?
– Scientific measurements have determined that the earth’s magnetic field is not a constant but decreasing. This decreasing field affects little things like where to put the decimal point on the earth’s age, and why you might not trust your dating service if she is carbon-14.
I applaud the author on this article on `fight or flight’ and Dr. Benson’s triggers to help combat those impulses. Keep `em coming!
It is safer to know what can be known then to worry about what you know. You can alway look it up or test it. But if you can’t ask a logical question you are in trouble.
Bolens says:
” Evolution is great, you can hide behind it and say God doesn’t exist. Place your faith in evolutionary theories and you get to discard all relgious/ethical training.”
This (incorrect) statement could be at the very heart of the debate between creationists and evolutionists. I firmly believe in evolution. I neither believe nor actively disbelieve in God; it hasn’t been proven to me either way, and I don’t really think it could be. However, at no point in any of my discussions of evolution have I ever tried to use this theory as a means of disproving God. I think you’ll find that most people who follow evolution either believe in God themselves, or don’t care either way if you do or don’t. We’re not trying to break down your God and put Darwin in His place… we’re just supporting what we believe to be good science.
Now, it is true that the creation of the world and its life is one of the great mysteries that religions seek to explain, and an accepted theory of this creation which does not necessarily include a god might destabilize religion a bit. However, if your faith in your god is strong, it shouldn’t bother you. You could accept evolution as His means of creation, you could actively disbelieve in evolution… it doesn’t really matter to me. But, you shouldn’t need to try to disprove the rest of us just to maintain your own faith, just as I don’t need to disprove your god to belive in evolution.
Oh, and this idea that ethics and religion are inextricably linked is utterly ridiculous. I will grant that religion is an excellent teacher of ethics, and that in general religious people are more ethical than non-religious people. However, it is very possible to be ethical and make good decisions without religion. In fact, most of the truly good people I know are non-religious.
Anyway, we’ve digressed far enough from the original story… I think I’ll stop now.
No one seems to have caught the most aggregious error in here…it should read “spatial orientation”, not “special”.
I like the site and the articles, but the grammar and spelling is awful!
Belief is the end, not the beginning of knowledge. I know that cuts both ways, but good science conducts two experiments at once. One to prove the idea, one to disprove it. Like control groups.
All through history, man has explained the unknown by attributing it to one god or another.
We still do that through ‘Intelligent design’ to patch the holes in the fossil record.
Bolens said: “Evolution is great, you can hide behind it and say God doesn’t exist. Place your faith in evolutionary theories and you get to discard all relgious/ethical training. Woohoo! Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die. But without rules (foundations for living) all would be anarchy. Some people are anarchists, but I wouldn’t hire one as a babysitter.
It seems everyone is seeking additional tidbits of truth for their daily stores of knowledge, or they would not be coming to this site. I applaud everybody in stopping by, and suggest that “all truth is God’s truth.” God cannot go against science, nor science against God. Bad science has killed multitudes, and false gods have also left multitudes dead. “
I find your suggestion that without religion, anarchy will reign supreme rather insulting. I have absolutely no religious beliefs whatsoever and I don’t believe that I will be punished for anything I do by a higher power but I am still a moral person and have no plans to throw away my ethics because of a lack of faith.
You say false gods are responsible for “multitudes dead” and assuming you consider the Christian god to be real (I disagree but for arguments sake) then do you honestly think no harm has ever come from following this god? The crusades massacred thousands for this god and even recently belief in this god has not prevented tragedies. How many times have murderers tried to justify horrific crimes by claiming divine instruction? The civil unrest in Northern Ireland and the Israel/Palestine conflict are both founded on religious belief. These are intentional evils as opposed to the accidental tragedies science can be blamed for. And as far as I’m aware, no war has ever been fought because of scientific disagreement.
As for your attempt to discredit carbon dating, please don’t try and use science to support your religious beliefs which as far as I’m concerned date the Earth on the basis of a 2000year old man made manuscript. Throughout history, all peoples have tried to explain why they are here with myths and I don’t see any difference with modern religion. The theory of evolution may not be perfect but that is why scientists continue to investigate and expand on their knowledge as opposed to religion which blindly follows whatever has been taught before and sees questioning this faith as a crime.
megzee said: “No one seems to have caught the most aggregious error in here…it should read “spatial orientation”, not “special”.
I like the site and the articles, but the grammar and spelling is awful!”
I like this site too, however the authors sometimes help to perpetuate misnomers such as the “saber-tooth tiger”. For those who read this site and gain knowledge, such as myself please note the correct name is a saber-tooth cat or smilodon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smilodon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saber-toothed_cat
megzee said: “No one seems to have caught the most aggregious error in here…it should read “spatial orientation”, not “special”.
I like the site and the articles, but the grammar and spelling is awful!”
Smeg!! I think the editor spell-checked it before posting and specialed my spatial. Arrrrgh!!!
yazheirx said: “I like this site too, however the authors sometimes help to perpetuate misnomers such as the “saber-tooth tiger”. For those who read this site and gain knowledge, such as myself please note the correct name is a saber-tooth cat or smilodon”[\quote]
The fact that you cite wikipedia as your sources of proof isn’t encouraging. Also the fact that I could produce equal numbers of sources who call it a saber-tooth tiger, including science magazines. And then there is the small notion that the saber-tooth cat/tiger/bear/sloth/elephant/squirrel has very little to do with the content of the article itself. Boy, you knuckleheads really need to get with it.
Regarding evolution vs. creationism, Christians have a long history of eventually embracing scientific advancements or discoveries once they’ve accepted the benefits to be gained from them. My favorites are the couples “blessed” with octuplets after years of prayer and countless fertility treatments. Anywho, the trick, it would seem, is to demonstrate something to be gained by believing in evolution, as guided by God of course. My money’s on the concept that evolution is making us ever more in God’s image — i.e. eventually to be gods ourselves.
I liked the inclusion of the little mental innocculation(sp) there. I’ll be sure to try that out if I can remember. Also, yes, the images: pure GOLD.
skwigul said: “Regarding evolution vs. creationism, Christians have a long history of eventually embracing scientific advancements or discoveries once they’ve accepted the benefits to be gained from them.
That’s true. In the 1980’s the pope apologized for the church’s offer to Galileo to recant his idea that the earth orbits the sun, or visit the inquisition.
Oax said: “That’s true. In the 1980’s the pope apologized for the church’s offer to Galileo to recant his idea that the earth orbits the sun, or visit the inquisition.”
Wow christianity works fast! Gallileo says something that disagrees with the bible and is bollocked by the chruch and BAM! 370years later they apolgise. By my reckoning then the world will have to wait till the latter part of the 24th century till christians apologise for George “Christ changed my heart” Bush. Although I reckon by then athesim will be the no.1 belief anyway so noone will care. we’ll all be too busy drinking, killing, raping, robbing etc.
I have to chuckle and wonder how many readers are now having an inappropriate “fight or flight” response arguing about evolution vs creationism!
Good article, Josh.
Please, just give http://www.talkorigins.org a good look over.
I’m going to borrow megzee’s pedant hat for a moment:
No one seems to have caught the most aggregious error in here…it should read “spatial orientation”, not “special”.
I like the site and the articles, but the grammar and spelling is awful!
There is no such word as “aggregious”. I think you meant “egregious”. Critiquing someone else’s misspellings with misspellings of your own is … special.
‘Systematic Desensitization’ or ‘Exposure’ are also good for training down your ASR to appropriate levels.
A RatShack temp sensor scotch taped (lightly) to your left index finger can help show results. +5 deg F, and you’re relaxing; if it goes down, you’re not. Also, touching your fingertips to your cheek can work too, as the perceptible change is ~5deg+/-.
There are also ways to short-circuit Obsessive Thinking that may exacerbate the ASR. Counting, singing something you know well or humming a tune; alternating the two.
http://metavitae.com
Eclipse – well said. Yet another comment section marred by pointless debates about evolution and grammar Nazis who can’t spell themselves. I also don’t understand the confusion about Pavlov’s dog. Despite the ambiguity of the clause, it should be obvious that a dog can’t propose theories or conduct scientific studies. Dogs cannot be “lifelong friends,” as their lifespan is less than 20 years. And how many dogs are named Walter? For the curious, Pavlov utilized many different dogs in his experiments, and they had names such as Rosa, Mirta, Norka, Trezor, Visgun, Jurka, Jack, John, Zolotisty, Druzhok, Sultan, Zhuchka and Tygan. (Remember, he was Russian.) I must agree with previous posters that the images in this article are priceless.
Crap. So being healthy is technically impossible becuase the only way to be healthy is without stress and there is absolutely nothing in this world that does not cause stress.
You all forget the best stress reducer… death :)
I was reading the comments about Science VS. Religion and wanted to put in my two cents (I only read about half-way down the page before I was no longer able to stop myself from just going ahead and commenting, so please don’t cyber-yell at me if this has already been said).
Religion is just a remnant from a time when we didn’t have to science to prove things, and needed something to fill the gap. If anybody were to suggest something along the lines of “There’s this big guy… and he… he just made us… problem solved” these day’s, I’m sure the only people to really embrace the idea would soon abandon it in favor of ‘The Secret’.
Folks need to understand the key differences between hypnotic and meditative states:
Hypnosis is a highly-aware, pleasurable state of easy influence, whereas meditation is a slower state.
Both can be self-induced or other-induced.