CLOSE
Original image

What is the Funny Bone, and Why Does Hitting It Hurt So Much?

Original image

The "funny bone" is neither funny (when you whack it on the edge of a piece of furniture), nor a bone (whether you whack it or not). Where'd the name come from, and why is it so painful?

What it is

The funny bone is actually the ulnar nerve, a nerve that runs from the neck all the way to the hand, where it innervates several muscles in the hand and forearm and ends in two branches that innervate the pinkie and half of the ring finger.

Why it hurts

For most of its length, the ulnar nerve is protected, like rest of the body's nerves, by bones, muscles and/or ligaments. As the nerve passes the elbow, though, it runs through a channel called the cubital tunnel, and here it's protected only by skin and fat, making it vulnerable to bumps. When you hit your funny bone, you're actually hitting the nerve against bone and compressing it. The result is an exhilarating cocktail of numbness, tingling and pain that shoots through the areas where the nerve does its work: down the forearm and hand and into the ring and pinky fingers.

Playing the name game

There are two camps in the debate over how the ulnar nerve got be known as the funny bone. One side says that it's an anatomical pun, because the nerve runs along the humerus, which sounds like "humorous." (Get it?) The other side claims that the nerve got its nickname because of the funny (as in odd) feeling you experience after you hit it.

Things could be worse

When you hit your funny bone, it seems like the worst thing in the world, but imagine experiencing chronic irritation there, like someone banging on your funny bone day and night. It sounds like a method of torture you'd dream up in a revenge fantasy, but it's a very real problem called cubital tunnel syndrome.

Cubital tunnel syndrome occurs when the ulnar nerve is obstructed during its trip along the elbow and gets pinched or squeezed, usually from sleeping with the arm folded up. The result is the same as a quick whack to the funny bone: numbness, pain and a tingling sensation, but it lasts a bit longer. Over time, progressive irritation of the nerve causes the numbness to settle in and stay. Muscle weakness in the forearm and hand can also set in, and the pinkie and ring finger can curl up in a position called the "ulnar claw." The condition can usually be helped with elbow splinting and the correction of aggravating postures, hand therapy or, in extreme cases, surgery that provides more space for the nerve and reduces the amount of pressure on it.

Original image
Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images
arrow
Big Questions
Why Do Baseball Managers Wear Uniforms?
Original image
Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images

Basketball and hockey coaches wear business suits on the sidelines. Football coaches wear team-branded shirts and jackets and often ill-fitting pleated khakis. Why are baseball managers the only guys who wear the same outfit as their players?

According to John Thorn, the official historian of Major League Baseball since 2011, it goes back to the earliest days of the game. Back then, the person known as the manager was the business manager: the guy who kept the books in order and the road trips on schedule. Meanwhile, the guy we call the manager today, the one who arranges the roster and decides when to pull a pitcher, was known as the captain. In addition to managing the team on the field, he was usually also on the team as a player. For many years, the “manager” wore a player’s uniform simply because he was a player. There were also a few captains who didn’t play for the team and stuck to making decisions in the dugout, and they usually wore suits.

With the passing of time, it became less common for the captain to play, and on most teams they took on strictly managerial roles. Instead of suits proliferating throughout America’s dugouts, though, non-playing captains largely hung on to the tradition of wearing a player's uniform. By the early to mid 20th century, wearing the uniform was the norm for managers, with a few notable exceptions. The Philadelphia Athletics’s Connie Mack and the Brooklyn Dodgers’s Burt Shotton continued to wear suits and ties to games long after it fell out of favor (though Shotton sometimes liked to layer a team jacket on top of his street clothes). Once those two retired, it’s been uniforms as far as the eye can see.

The adherence to the uniform among managers in the second half of the 20th century leads some people to think that MLB mandates it, but a look through the official major league rules [PDF] doesn’t turn up much on a manager’s dress. Rule 1.11(a) (1) says that “All players on a team shall wear uniforms identical in color, trim and style, and all players’ uniforms shall include minimal six-inch numbers on their backs" and rule 2.00 states that a coach is a "team member in uniform appointed by the manager to perform such duties as the manager may designate, such as but not limited to acting as base coach."

While Rule 2.00 gives a rundown of the manager’s role and some rules that apply to them, it doesn’t specify that they’re uniformed. Further down, Rule 3.15 says that "No person shall be allowed on the playing field during a game except players and coaches in uniform, managers, news photographers authorized by the home team, umpires, officers of the law in uniform and watchmen or other employees of the home club." Again, nothing about the managers being uniformed.

All that said, Rule 2.00 defines the bench or dugout as “the seating facilities reserved for players, substitutes and other team members in uniform when they are not actively engaged on the playing field," and makes no exceptions for managers or anyone else. While the managers’ duds are never addressed anywhere else, this definition does seem to necessitate, in a roundabout way, that managers wear a uniform—at least if they want to have access to the dugout. And, really, where else would they sit?

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, let us know by emailing us at bigquestions@mentalfloss.com.

Original image
iStock
arrow
Big Questions
How Long Could a Person Survive With an Unlimited Supply of Water, But No Food at All?
Original image
iStock

How long could a person survive if he had unlimited supply of water, but no food at all?

Richard Lee Fulgham:

I happen to know the answer because I have studied starvation, its course, and its utility in committing a painless suicide. (No, I’m not suicidal.)

A healthy human being can live approximately 45 to 65 days without food of any kind, so long as he or she keeps hydrated.

You could survive without any severe symptoms [for] about 30 to 35 days, but after that you would probably experience skin rashes, diarrhea, and of course substantial weight loss.

The body—as you must know—begins eating itself, beginning with adipose tissue (i.e. fat) and next the muscle tissue.

Google Mahatma Gandhi, who starved himself almost to death during 14 voluntary hunger strikes to bring attention to India’s independence movement.

Strangely, there is much evidence that starvation is a painless way to die. In fact, you experience a wonderful euphoria when the body realizes it is about to die. Whether this is a divine gift or merely secretions of the brain is not known.

Of course, the picture is not so pretty for all reports. Some victims of starvation have experienced extreme irritability, unbearably itchy skin rashes, unceasing diarrhea, painful swallowing, and edema.

In most cases, death comes when the organs begin to shut down after six to nine weeks. Usually the heart simply stops.

(Here is a detailed medical report of the longest known fast: 382 days.)

This post originally appeared on Quora. Click here to view.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios