3 ms·

As I understand it, scar tissue isn’t necessarily weaker, and can be stronger, but is mostly adapted to the injury and how it was able to heal. If the injury wa

As I understand it, scar tissue isn’t necessarily weaker, and can be stronger, but is mostly adapted to the injury and how it was able to heal. If the injury was well attended, scar tissue can be as good or better than what was there before. If the injury is neglected, or repeatedly re-injured before it could ever fully heal, then it will be tougher and less flexible and more painful even long after it has technically healed. It won’t move the same way as before, it won’t be as supple, it will need more attention over time. An injury can take only a moment, but recovery and healing takes much longer. If you address it sooner rather than later, and if you take care to avoid similar injuries, it’s more likely to heal well. If it’s neglected, if you half-ass it, etc., it may never heal properly. A nitpick, but only because other than that it’s not a bad metaphor.

hliyan 3y ago
I agree. I've seen couples who've gone through a lot of turmoil in their younger years but have emerged stronger and have happily grown old together. Granted, they are the minority. So I too, feel the scar tissue analogy is imperfect. Perhaps in some cases, relationship issues are like fractures -- the mend is in fact stronger than the break.
- throwaway173738 3y ago
  That is, if you take the time to mend it.
- haldujai 3y ago
  > fractures -- the mend is in fact stronger than the break. This is also a medically incorrect statement for similar reasons to scar tissue, the resultant trabecular disorganization always results in weaker bone, even for “perfectly” healed fractures. I think the original metaphor (and even fractures) still holds but in a different way than you described. I highly doubt any of those couples (and from personal experience myself) wanted the turmoil however one feels after the fact, “made us stronger” is often a combination of dissonance and a statement that other areas of the relationship strengthened to compensate (in the fracture analogy: if you break your left leg your right one will strengthen from increased mechanical load to compensate). One would not break a bone in an attempt to make it stronger, but a broken bone can heal to near full strength and other bones in the body get stronger to compensate. If you break your bone repeatedly, it heals as a deformed structure that is considerably weaker than what you started and will break from a minor injury. If you substitute bones for relationship I think this holds. With effort it’s possible to recover from and compensate for relationship trauma and thrive as an organism/couple, but it’s still better to avoid emotional trauma to begin with (assuming it’s possible) as with physical trauma.
  - eastbound 3y ago
    > If you break your bone repeatedly, it heals as a deformed structure that is considerably weaker So taekwondo people who train to hit concrete pillars don’t get stronger from the repeated hits, do you confirm? And “what doesn’t kill, makes you stronger” is false too?
    - haldujai 3y ago
      > So taekwondo people who train to hit concrete pillars don’t get stronger from the repeated hits, do you confirm? Stress from repetitive microtrauma is not the same as a fracture (stress to failure). Increased mechanical loading (hitting a concrete pillar, exercise) can absolutely strengthen bone in a similar mechanism to decreased load weakening bones (little old lady, astronauts). Breaking a bone completely disrupts the internal architecture and what is deposited is unequivocally weaker than what was there before. > And “what doesn’t kill, makes you stronger” is false too I have no professional opinion on this aphorism. I do have one on bone healing.
    - dmd 3y ago
      > And “what doesn’t kill, makes you stronger” is false too? It's absolutely false. Nearly everything that hurts you makes you weaker, not stronger.
      - pdonis 3y ago
        > Nearly everything that hurts you makes you weaker, not stronger. I think this is, at the very least, highly variable from person to person.
        dmd 3y ago
        Why isn't it standard medical practice, then, to have each of your major bones broken in series, for example?
        pdonis 3y ago
- MagicMoonlight 3y ago
  Or they were weakened but they didn’t get ripped apart…
haldujai 3y ago
Medically speaking, your understanding is bit off in that while there are several factors that affect the resulting strength of scar tissue, the underlying disorganization in scar tissue will always leave it biomechanically weaker than than uninjured skin. It is true that with early attention, proper wound care, etc scar can approach normal skin but even in the best of circumstances it will still be “slightly weaker” rather than as good or better. [0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3840475/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3840475/

hliyan 3y ago

I agree. I've seen couples who've gone through a lot of turmoil in their younger years but have emerged stronger and have happily grown old together. Granted, they are the minority. So I too, feel the scar tissue analogy is imperfect. Perhaps in some cases, relationship issues are like fractures -- the mend is in fact stronger than the break.

throwaway173738 3y ago
That is, if you take the time to mend it.
haldujai 3y ago
> fractures -- the mend is in fact stronger than the break. This is also a medically incorrect statement for similar reasons to scar tissue, the resultant trabecular disorganization always results in weaker bone, even for “perfectly” healed fractures. I think the original metaphor (and even fractures) still holds but in a different way than you described. I highly doubt any of those couples (and from personal experience myself) wanted the turmoil however one feels after the fact, “made us stronger” is often a combination of dissonance and a statement that other areas of the relationship strengthened to compensate (in the fracture analogy: if you break your left leg your right one will strengthen from increased mechanical load to compensate). One would not break a bone in an attempt to make it stronger, but a broken bone can heal to near full strength and other bones in the body get stronger to compensate. If you break your bone repeatedly, it heals as a deformed structure that is considerably weaker than what you started and will break from a minor injury. If you substitute bones for relationship I think this holds. With effort it’s possible to recover from and compensate for relationship trauma and thrive as an organism/couple, but it’s still better to avoid emotional trauma to begin with (assuming it’s possible) as with physical trauma.
- eastbound 3y ago
  > If you break your bone repeatedly, it heals as a deformed structure that is considerably weaker So taekwondo people who train to hit concrete pillars don’t get stronger from the repeated hits, do you confirm? And “what doesn’t kill, makes you stronger” is false too?
  - haldujai 3y ago
    > So taekwondo people who train to hit concrete pillars don’t get stronger from the repeated hits, do you confirm? Stress from repetitive microtrauma is not the same as a fracture (stress to failure). Increased mechanical loading (hitting a concrete pillar, exercise) can absolutely strengthen bone in a similar mechanism to decreased load weakening bones (little old lady, astronauts). Breaking a bone completely disrupts the internal architecture and what is deposited is unequivocally weaker than what was there before. > And “what doesn’t kill, makes you stronger” is false too I have no professional opinion on this aphorism. I do have one on bone healing.
  - dmd 3y ago
    > And “what doesn’t kill, makes you stronger” is false too? It's absolutely false. Nearly everything that hurts you makes you weaker, not stronger.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > Nearly everything that hurts you makes you weaker, not stronger. I think this is, at the very least, highly variable from person to person.
      - dmd 3y ago
        Why isn't it standard medical practice, then, to have each of your major bones broken in series, for example?
        pdonis 3y ago
MagicMoonlight 3y ago
Or they were weakened but they didn’t get ripped apart…

haldujai 3y ago

Medically speaking, your understanding is bit off in that while there are several factors that affect the resulting strength of scar tissue, the underlying disorganization in scar tissue will always leave it biomechanically weaker than than uninjured skin. It is true that with early attention, proper wound care, etc scar can approach normal skin but even in the best of circumstances it will still be “slightly weaker” rather than as good or better. [0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3840475/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3840475/