Does the Body Keep the Score? Reflections on Trauma, Neuroscience and Embodied Healing

Donna Navarro
May 17
4 min read

The Evolving Science of Trauma. Does the body keep the Score?

Within trauma-informed and somatic healing spaces, there has long been discussion around whether trauma is “stored in the body.” Newer neuroscience is increasingly reframing this conversation through concepts such as predictive processing, interoception and the embodied nervous system, while still acknowledging the profound physiological impact trauma can have on the body and nervous system.

There has been significant discussion recently around a new paper by Kotler, Mannino, Fox and Friston titled “The body does not keep the score: trauma, predictive processing, and the embodied brain.” The paper challenges some of the more literal interpretations of trauma being “stored in the body” and instead frames trauma through the lens of predictive processing, nervous system patterning and the embodied brain.

As often happens within trauma discourse online, the conversation has quickly become polarised. Some people are interpreting the paper as evidence that body-based trauma approaches have been “debunked.” Others are defending somatic and embodied healing work at all costs, sometimes without engaging fully with the nuance of the research itself.

Personally, I believe the conversation deserves more care than this. And perhaps more importantly, I think the debate itself reveals something important about how we communicate trauma science, healing and lived experience.

The Problem With Literal Interpretations

When Bessel van der Kolk wrote The Body Keeps the Score, I do not believe most trauma-informed practitioners understood this as meaning trauma is literally hidden inside muscle fibres or fascia waiting to be physically released. The phrase resonated because survivors recognised themselves within it. Their body responded before their conscious mind did.

Their breath shortened in situations that felt unsafe.Their shoulders braced.Their stomach tightened.Their sleep became disrupted.Their nervous system remained hypervigilant long after the danger had passed. This is something many trauma survivors experience viscerally and repeatedly. However, problems can emerge when metaphorical language becomes interpreted as literal biological fact. Some trauma narratives have, at times, drifted into oversimplified explanations that are not fully supported by current neuroscience.

The newer research challenges this simplification. And rightly so.

The Brain Versus Body Debate Is Misleading

What concerns me most about some reactions to this paper is the suggestion that trauma exists “only in the brain,” as though the brain and body are somehow separate entities.

The brain is part of the body. The nervous system is embodied. Our physiology, immune system, endocrine system, autonomic nervous system, breath, posture, sensation and perception are all in constant communication with one another.

Modern neuroscience increasingly points us towards integration rather than separation.

Trauma does not occur in isolation from the body because human experience itself is embodied.

The recent paper itself does not dismiss the importance of somatic states. In fact, the authors explicitly acknowledge the important contribution van der Kolk made in drawing attention to the embodied nature of trauma responses. What they challenge is the idea that trauma is physically “stored” somewhere in tissue in a simplistic way.That distinction matters.

Trauma as an Embodied Nervous System Experience

From both clinical observation and lived experience, we can clearly see that trauma profoundly influences the way the nervous system experiences the world.

Trauma can alter:

stress responses,
threat perception,
interoception (our awareness of internal bodily states),
muscle tension,
breathing patterns,
digestion,
sleep,
emotional regulation,
relational safety,
and the capacity to feel grounded within the body itself.

These are not imaginary experiences. Nor are they “just psychological.” They are deeply embodied nervous system experiences involving brain, body and environment interacting together. This is why body-based approaches can still be profoundly valuable. Not because trauma is trapped inside muscles waiting to be extracted, but because healing often requires experiences of safety, regulation, embodiment, connection and nervous system flexibility that cannot always be reached through cognition alone.

Why Nuance Matters in Trauma Work

As trauma-informed practitioners, I believe we have a responsibility to hold nuance carefully.

Oversimplified trauma narratives can unintentionally:

reduce complex neuroscience into catchy soundbites,
create confusion,
or imply guarantees that healing modalities cannot ethically promise.

At the same time, dismissing embodied approaches entirely ignores the lived reality of many survivors whose bodies continue responding long after traumatic events have ended.

The body matters.

The brain matters.

The nervous system matters.

And perhaps most importantly, the lived experience of survivors matters.

Towards a More Integrated Understanding

I do not believe newer neuroscience invalidates embodied healing work. If anything, I believe it invites us into a more sophisticated understanding of trauma - one that moves beyond simplistic brain-versus-body thinking and towards a deeper appreciation of the embodied nervous system as a whole.

Perhaps the question was never: “Is trauma stored in the brain or the body?” Perhaps the more useful question is: How do traumatic experiences shape the entire human system and our ongoing experience of safety, connection and regulation within the world?

At How We Heal CIC, we believe trauma-informed practice should remain compassionate, embodied, ethically grounded and open to ongoing scientific dialogue. We do not see neuroscience and embodied healing as opposing ideas, but as interconnected parts of understanding human experience more fully.