Trauma is a fact of life. Veterans and their families deal with the painful aftermath of combat; one in five Americans has been molested; one in four grew up with alcoholics; one in three couples have engaged in physical violence. Dr. Bessel van der Kolk, one of the world's foremost experts on trauma, has spent over three decades working with survivors. In The Body Keeps the Score, he uses recent scientific advances to show how trauma literally reshapes both body and brain, compromising sufferers' capacities for pleasure, engagement, self-control, and trust. He explores innovative treatments—from neurofeedback and meditation to sports, drama, and yoga—that offer new paths to recovery by activating the brain's natural neuroplasticity. Based on Dr. van der Kolk's own research and that of other leading specialists, The Body Keeps the Score exposes the tremendous power of our relationships both to hurt and to heal—and offers new hope for reclaiming lives.
This collaborative space allows users to contribute additional information, tips, and insights to enhance the original deal post. Feel free to share your knowledge and help fellow shoppers make informed decisions.
Trauma is a fact of life. Veterans and their families deal with the painful aftermath of combat; one in five Americans has been molested; one in four grew up with alcoholics; one in three couples have engaged in physical violence. Dr. Bessel van der Kolk, one of the world's foremost experts on trauma, has spent over three decades working with survivors. In The Body Keeps the Score, he uses recent scientific advances to show how trauma literally reshapes both body and brain, compromising sufferers' capacities for pleasure, engagement, self-control, and trust. He explores innovative treatments—from neurofeedback and meditation to sports, drama, and yoga—that offer new paths to recovery by activating the brain's natural neuroplasticity. Based on Dr. van der Kolk's own research and that of other leading specialists, The Body Keeps the Score exposes the tremendous power of our relationships both to hurt and to heal—and offers new hope for reclaiming lives.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED for those with C-PTSD/PTSD and/or chronic pain. Read this book many years ago and it completely changed my life. Read some reviews and see if it jives with you, reading it can be a healing (or infuriating if you have unresolved trauma) experience. I don't wanna open a can of worms on SD so let's leave it at that, but $1.99 for the ebook edition of this amazing book is a fantastic deal.
For people with trauma, this book does carry a lot of triggering **** in it, including fairly casual discussions of people's trauma responses to SA, and the like.
It is valuable, but clinicians frequently recommend looking into some of the content before reading, as, while any book about trauma is going to be emotionally challenging, this book doesn't give a lot of consideration to the experience of the reader.
You are absolutely right. This book is helpful for context and perhaps perspective, but the way it describes the biological and neurological interactions between traumatic experiences and the body are factually incorrect. I'm also a mental health professional, for context.
If it helps, great! But it's not wholly accurate.
22 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank LindsInSC
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED for those with C-PTSD/PTSD and/or chronic pain. Read this book many years ago and it completely changed my life. Read some reviews and see if it jives with you, reading it can be a healing (or infuriating if you have unresolved trauma) experience. I don't wanna open a can of worms on SD so let's leave it at that, but $1.99 for the ebook edition of this amazing book is a fantastic deal.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank LavenderDirt1567
Obligatory comment --
For people with trauma, this book does carry a lot of triggering **** in it, including fairly casual discussions of people's trauma responses to SA, and the like.
It is valuable, but clinicians frequently recommend looking into some of the content before reading, as, while any book about trauma is going to be emotionally challenging, this book doesn't give a lot of consideration to the experience of the reader.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank BrainDoc
I tried reading this a few years ago because it is generally well liked. I didn't make it very far before giving up in frustration.
As background, I have professional expertise in this area and publish research in some areas covered in the book. While this book might be helpful for understanding trauma, the neuroscience of it is not accurate, to put it mildly. Some of the biology described in it is also not accurate. That was enough to put me off from reading it. If the author couldn't get some of the biological sciences and information correct, it made it hard for me to accept what else he was writing.
I don't want to discourage people from buying the book, because some might benefit from it, but read it with an understanding that what he writes about the brain and other aspects of biology might not be not correct. I'm not saying all the neuroscience is wrong, but just accept that it could be wrong.
Edit: See my reply later in this thread for a more in-depth comment.
Last edited by BrainDoc February 25, 2025 at 01:32 PM.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank Hesstory
Quote
from BrainDoc
:
I tried reading this a few years ago because it is generally well liked. I didn't make it very far before giving up in frustration.
As background, I have professional expertise in this area and publish research in some areas covered in the book. While this book might be helpful for understanding trauma, the neuroscience of it is not accurate, to put it mildly. Some of the biology described in it is also not accurate. That was enough to put me off from reading it. If the author couldn't get some of the biological sciences and information correct, it made it hard for me to accept what else he was writing.
I don't want to discourage people from buying the book, because some might benefit from it, but read it with an understanding that what he writes about the brain and other aspects of biology is probably not correct. I'm not saying all the biology is wrong, but just accept that it could be wrong.
You are absolutely right. This book is helpful for context and perhaps perspective, but the way it describes the biological and neurological interactions between traumatic experiences and the body are factually incorrect. I'm also a mental health professional, for context.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank Savinginthe802
Quote
from BrainDoc
:
I tried reading this a few years ago because it is generally well liked. I didn't make it very far before giving up in frustration.
As background, I have professional expertise in this area and publish research in some areas covered in the book. While this book might be helpful for understanding trauma, the neuroscience of it is not accurate, to put it mildly. Some of the biology described in it is also not accurate. That was enough to put me off from reading it. If the author couldn't get some of the biological sciences and information correct, it made it hard for me to accept what else he was writing.
I don't want to discourage people from buying the book, because some might benefit from it, but read it with an understanding that what he writes about the brain and other aspects of biology is probably not correct. I'm not saying all the biology is wrong, but just accept that it could be wrong.
Can you provide some specific examples and do you have any sources? The book is highly rated, often recommended by readers and healthcare professionals, and it presents itself as highly researched with many sources. I appreciate skepticism and people probably should read about these topics from more than just this book. However, it makes much more sense for someone to trust the book that is highly rated, often recommended, and has many sources over someone just saying they're an expert and only providing vague criticism.
I tried reading this a few years ago because it is generally well liked. I didn't make it very far before giving up in frustration.
As background, I have professional expertise in this area and publish research in some areas covered in the book. While this book might be helpful for understanding trauma, the neuroscience of it is not accurate, to put it mildly. Some of the biology described in it is also not accurate. That was enough to put me off from reading it. If the author couldn't get some of the biological sciences and information correct, it made it hard for me to accept what else he was writing.
I don't want to discourage people from buying the book, because some might benefit from it, but read it with an understanding that what he writes about the brain and other aspects of biology is probably not correct. I'm not saying all the biology is wrong, but just accept that it could be wrong.
This book has been foundational to my understanding of trauma and my own recovery from it, so I find it more than a little concerning that the science presented as a basis for that understanding may be misrepresented or outright fabricated.
I'm very interested in investigating these inconsistencies, are there any resources you can point me toward to get me started? What about the neuroscience is flawed?
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank BrainDoc
Quote
from Savinginthe802
:
Can you provide some specific examples and do you have any sources? The book is highly rated, often recommended by readers and healthcare professionals, and it presents itself as highly researched with many sources. I appreciate skepticism and people probably should read about these topics from more than just this book. However, it makes much more sense for someone to trust the book that is highly rated, often recommended, and has many sources over someone just saying they're an expert and only providing vague criticism.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not criticizing the book's usefulness for understanding trauma or any of that. I think it's an important book that helps a lot of people. I'm simply stating that the author is wrong about some of the neuroscience and biology. Those are not areas of his expertise, and several claims he makes are not supported by research. It's not that we've discovered that claims he makes are not accurate since the book was originally published in 2014, the issue is that they never were accurate.
Here are a couple examples of incorrect neuroscience from the first few chapters in the book.
The author writes about people "reptile" and "mammal" brains. That's based on an idea a neuroscientist, Dr. MacLean, first wrote about in the 1960s called the "triune brain theory". It gained popularity in Carl Sagan's book, The Dragons of Eden. The problem is that it's not correct. It was little more than a supposition and is not supported by evolution or neuroscience. There are some truths to the idea (we have parts of our brains doing 'simpler' functions), but the overall idea is just not true. It's like the myth from the 1980s that somehow gained some acceptance that we only use 10% of our brains.
The author also writes about the "left" brain and "right" brain in a way that is highly inaccurate. Our cerebral hemispheres have some specialization, but he basically used a pop psychology (and incorrect) way to talk about our brains. It's misleading neuroscience at best.
Again, I didn't read the whole book because after a few chapters of the book, I stopped reading. He didn't get all the neuroscience wrong, but did enough of it that it was hard for me, a neuroscientist, to continue reading. I'm sure there are other inaccuracies in the book. Some people can ignore them, but because they relate to areas I study and publish, it was difficult for me to get through the book.
If people don't want to take my word as an anonymous internet stranger (although I'll say that my username here is accurate), that's understandable. I have not published a formal review of the book -- it's not something I'm interested in doing. I'm offering my input as someone who researches, publishes, and teaches about the brain and various aspects of human behavior including pain, mood, and stress (people will just have to take my word about that, or not, but it is true).
As a neuroscientist reading (part of) the book, it was like this for me. Suppose you are reading a history of the United States and the author wrote, "FDR, the son of Theodore Roosevelt, U.S. president, emigrated from Athens at the age of 23, and became president of the United States during World War I." There are some truths in there (Theodore Roosevelt was a president, he was related to FDR {5th cousins and Eleanor's uncle}, and FDR was a U.S. president during a world war), but overall it's fiction. I'm not being particularly hyperbolic. Some of the neuroscience he wrote about was that inaccurate (e.g., examples I gave above). Even if much of the rest of the book is accurate scientifically, there were enough neuroscience-related red flags to me that I could not finish the book. Again, that doesn't mean it's not a good book, it just has some limitations.
Normally I don't like to link to Wikipedia since I prefer primary sources, but it does link to primary sources offering some critiques (note that I have not read any of these -- I just found them this morning -- so I cannot comment on their accuracy): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bes..._and_views
"However, some scientists have criticized the book for promoting pseudoscientific claims.[26][27] Martin Kristen of The Washington Post criticized Van der Kolk for promoting "uncertain science", such as mirror neurons, the polyvagal theory, and the triune brain model.[28] Similarly, Peter Barglow, writing for the Skeptical Inquirer, criticized him for endorsing controversial treatments, including EMDR and emotional freedom technique."
I should note that reference 26 isn't specifically about the book (it came out years before he wrote the book), but it's an article that suggests that some of his claims about trauma and memory are not really clear enough based on the scientific evidence.
A final thought. Some of what he does is suggest that his book is how things really are. He's much more confident than much of the scientific evidence allows. I understand that tendency when communicating with a broader audience, but all he needed to do was simply rephrase some sentences in his book.
Again, I agree that the book is helpful to many people and is, for many people, worth reading and understanding. I simply offer my expertise to say he doesn't get all the science correct.
Last edited by BrainDoc February 25, 2025 at 01:40 PM.
This book has been foundational to my understanding of trauma and my own recovery from it, so I find it more than a little concerning that the science presented as a basis for that understanding may be misrepresented or outright fabricated.
I'm very interested in investigating these inconsistencies, are there any resources you can point me toward to get me started? What about the neuroscience is flawed?
I should add that I'm not questioning the usefulness or helpfulness of the book, I'm just stating that some of the neuroscience and biology of it are not correct.
Last edited by BrainDoc February 25, 2025 at 06:00 AM.
1
1
Like
Helpful
Funny
Not helpful
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
I've been a practicing MH Counselor for over 30 years and I've never run across a more thorough and comprehensive guide to trauma and it's effects on the mind and body. As others have mentioned though be forewarned this book has very detailed and disturbing accounts of trauma and may be triggering for many people.
Top Comments
For people with trauma, this book does carry a lot of triggering **** in it, including fairly casual discussions of people's trauma responses to SA, and the like.
It is valuable, but clinicians frequently recommend looking into some of the content before reading, as, while any book about trauma is going to be emotionally challenging, this book doesn't give a lot of consideration to the experience of the reader.
If it helps, great! But it's not wholly accurate.
22 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank LindsInSC
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank LavenderDirt1567
For people with trauma, this book does carry a lot of triggering **** in it, including fairly casual discussions of people's trauma responses to SA, and the like.
It is valuable, but clinicians frequently recommend looking into some of the content before reading, as, while any book about trauma is going to be emotionally challenging, this book doesn't give a lot of consideration to the experience of the reader.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank BrainDoc
As background, I have professional expertise in this area and publish research in some areas covered in the book. While this book might be helpful for understanding trauma, the neuroscience of it is not accurate, to put it mildly. Some of the biology described in it is also not accurate. That was enough to put me off from reading it. If the author couldn't get some of the biological sciences and information correct, it made it hard for me to accept what else he was writing.
I don't want to discourage people from buying the book, because some might benefit from it, but read it with an understanding that what he writes about the brain and other aspects of biology might not be not correct. I'm not saying all the neuroscience is wrong, but just accept that it could be wrong.
Edit: See my reply later in this thread for a more in-depth comment.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank Hesstory
As background, I have professional expertise in this area and publish research in some areas covered in the book. While this book might be helpful for understanding trauma, the neuroscience of it is not accurate, to put it mildly. Some of the biology described in it is also not accurate. That was enough to put me off from reading it. If the author couldn't get some of the biological sciences and information correct, it made it hard for me to accept what else he was writing.
I don't want to discourage people from buying the book, because some might benefit from it, but read it with an understanding that what he writes about the brain and other aspects of biology is probably not correct. I'm not saying all the biology is wrong, but just accept that it could be wrong.
You are absolutely right. This book is helpful for context and perhaps perspective, but the way it describes the biological and neurological interactions between traumatic experiences and the body are factually incorrect. I'm also a mental health professional, for context.
If it helps, great! But it's not wholly accurate.
friends, just be wary of advice from comments on the internet. surely some can be trusted, but others can't.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank Savinginthe802
As background, I have professional expertise in this area and publish research in some areas covered in the book. While this book might be helpful for understanding trauma, the neuroscience of it is not accurate, to put it mildly. Some of the biology described in it is also not accurate. That was enough to put me off from reading it. If the author couldn't get some of the biological sciences and information correct, it made it hard for me to accept what else he was writing.
I don't want to discourage people from buying the book, because some might benefit from it, but read it with an understanding that what he writes about the brain and other aspects of biology is probably not correct. I'm not saying all the biology is wrong, but just accept that it could be wrong.
Can you provide some specific examples and do you have any sources? The book is highly rated, often recommended by readers and healthcare professionals, and it presents itself as highly researched with many sources. I appreciate skepticism and people probably should read about these topics from more than just this book. However, it makes much more sense for someone to trust the book that is highly rated, often recommended, and has many sources over someone just saying they're an expert and only providing vague criticism.
As background, I have professional expertise in this area and publish research in some areas covered in the book. While this book might be helpful for understanding trauma, the neuroscience of it is not accurate, to put it mildly. Some of the biology described in it is also not accurate. That was enough to put me off from reading it. If the author couldn't get some of the biological sciences and information correct, it made it hard for me to accept what else he was writing.
I don't want to discourage people from buying the book, because some might benefit from it, but read it with an understanding that what he writes about the brain and other aspects of biology is probably not correct. I'm not saying all the biology is wrong, but just accept that it could be wrong.
This book has been foundational to my understanding of trauma and my own recovery from it, so I find it more than a little concerning that the science presented as a basis for that understanding may be misrepresented or outright fabricated.
I'm very interested in investigating these inconsistencies, are there any resources you can point me toward to get me started? What about the neuroscience is flawed?
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank BrainDoc
Here are a couple examples of incorrect neuroscience from the first few chapters in the book.
The author writes about people "reptile" and "mammal" brains. That's based on an idea a neuroscientist, Dr. MacLean, first wrote about in the 1960s called the "triune brain theory". It gained popularity in Carl Sagan's book, The Dragons of Eden. The problem is that it's not correct. It was little more than a supposition and is not supported by evolution or neuroscience. There are some truths to the idea (we have parts of our brains doing 'simpler' functions), but the overall idea is just not true. It's like the myth from the 1980s that somehow gained some acceptance that we only use 10% of our brains.
The author also writes about the "left" brain and "right" brain in a way that is highly inaccurate. Our cerebral hemispheres have some specialization, but he basically used a pop psychology (and incorrect) way to talk about our brains. It's misleading neuroscience at best.
Again, I didn't read the whole book because after a few chapters of the book, I stopped reading. He didn't get all the neuroscience wrong, but did enough of it that it was hard for me, a neuroscientist, to continue reading. I'm sure there are other inaccuracies in the book. Some people can ignore them, but because they relate to areas I study and publish, it was difficult for me to get through the book.
If people don't want to take my word as an anonymous internet stranger (although I'll say that my username here is accurate), that's understandable. I have not published a formal review of the book -- it's not something I'm interested in doing. I'm offering my input as someone who researches, publishes, and teaches about the brain and various aspects of human behavior including pain, mood, and stress (people will just have to take my word about that, or not, but it is true).
As a neuroscientist reading (part of) the book, it was like this for me. Suppose you are reading a history of the United States and the author wrote, "FDR, the son of Theodore Roosevelt, U.S. president, emigrated from Athens at the age of 23, and became president of the United States during World War I." There are some truths in there (Theodore Roosevelt was a president, he was related to FDR {5th cousins and Eleanor's uncle}, and FDR was a U.S. president during a world war), but overall it's fiction. I'm not being particularly hyperbolic. Some of the neuroscience he wrote about was that inaccurate (e.g., examples I gave above). Even if much of the rest of the book is accurate scientifically, there were enough neuroscience-related red flags to me that I could not finish the book. Again, that doesn't mean it's not a good book, it just has some limitations.
Normally I don't like to link to Wikipedia since I prefer primary sources, but it does link to primary sources offering some critiques (note that I have not read any of these -- I just found them this morning -- so I cannot comment on their accuracy): https://en.wikipedia.or
"However, some scientists have criticized the book for promoting pseudoscientific claims.[26][27] Martin Kristen of The Washington Post criticized Van der Kolk for promoting "uncertain science", such as mirror neurons, the polyvagal theory, and the triune brain model.[28] Similarly, Peter Barglow, writing for the Skeptical Inquirer, criticized him for endorsing controversial treatments, including EMDR and emotional freedom technique."
I should note that reference 26 isn't specifically about the book (it came out years before he wrote the book), but it's an article that suggests that some of his claims about trauma and memory are not really clear enough based on the scientific evidence.
A final thought. Some of what he does is suggest that his book is how things really are. He's much more confident than much of the scientific evidence allows. I understand that tendency when communicating with a broader audience, but all he needed to do was simply rephrase some sentences in his book.
Again, I agree that the book is helpful to many people and is, for many people, worth reading and understanding. I simply offer my expertise to say he doesn't get all the science correct.
I'm very interested in investigating these inconsistencies, are there any resources you can point me toward to get me started? What about the neuroscience is flawed?
I should add that I'm not questioning the usefulness or helpfulness of the book, I'm just stating that some of the neuroscience and biology of it are not correct.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.