Pre-emptive Protective Nerve Behaviour


I think most would agree that nerve reactions are generally seen as post incident events. An injury or malfunction occurs, and the dedicated nerve reacts with whatever warning signals it deems necessary to alert us to the danger, and possibly to also kick start the immune system into instigating local reactions. I don’t think that we ever accept that the nerve could have predicted such an event in any way, and somehow managed to warn us before the injury / malfunction actually occurred. However, where there might occur an incident of a possible threat to the nerve system itself, I suggest that the nerve system can adopt a more pre-emptive protective warning and reaction role. It just makes sense that it would have the ability to protect itself and thus maintain it’s integrity for dealing with other problems in the usual way.

We train ourselves to rationalise events with a ‘cause and effect’ overview, which most of the time proves itself to be adequate. Where that ‘cause’ has not yet happened, but the nervous system has predicted that it might, we have to change our overview for assessing the problem, and try and see that it’s the nerve’s predictive ability which is the real ‘cause’. Obviously, because of the nerve system’s ability to instigate reactions, before the threat to itself becomes a reality, that reality can be avoided, and all we are left to deal with are the after effects of the nerve system’s pre-emptive protective measures.

The key to all this would be whether we accept that the nerve system can enter this pre-emptive mode, and if so, how we should react to it, because we may be dealing with muscular reactions which have been instigated for good reasons. Perhaps for better reasons than any external interference could claim. If we accept that this can happen, then what we really ought to be looking at, in terms of interfering, is how to remove the threat which the nervous system has recognised. Just dealing with the after effects does seem a bit pointless when we consider that the nervous system is always one step ahead of our reactions, and can pre-emptively instigate its own reactions to whatever manipulations we might attempt. So, recognising, and somehow relieving, the threat to the nerve is really the only way forward, and all therapies should be contained within the spectrum of limitations which such an overview allows.

My interest in all this mostly concerns the neck area, and particularly the Cervical Spondylosis condition, where the ‘associated’ symptoms familiar to all who have the condition are brought into sharp contrast. But, maybe the same theory can be applied to all spinal conditions where a nerve is threatened. Where a threatened nerve has evolved into a compressed nerve, there will be different symptoms and a different theory applies. How to read the symptoms correctly, and whether they are ‘associated’ to a possible threat, or whether they are ‘direct’ as a result of actual nerve compression, is all important when choosing an external treatment. I’ve experienced both types and have become familiar with their differing behaviours, and I’m on a little mission to help clarify the dynamics involved and, at the same time, to suggest exploring appropriate treatments, particularly concerning the remedial effects of adjusting sleeping postures.

I’m interested in hearing about any reports or investigations into sleeping posture therapies for these types of nerve threatened conditions, mostly because I’ve come to realise through my own experiences that the sleeping process seems to be where the nerve reactions are first instigated.