Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)
health.harvard.edu
Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)
1–10 of 148 posts
Re: Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)
#2They didn’t directly mention it in the article, but I wonder about increases in sedentary lifestyles over that same time period. Base metabolic rate would go down as an average as sedentary lifestyles increase.
Re: Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)
#3As the article says, Wunderlich reached a conclusion of 37C in the 1800s, and that’s what we’ve used since then.
The real problem appears to be that converting to Fahrenheit and reporting this as “98.6F” suggests an order of magnitude more precision than “37C”. 36.5C would still round to 37 but corresponds to 97.7F.
Re: Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)
#4Not sure if it's all the countries, but I have always heard the normal body temperature in Celsius stated as 36.5, which is 97.7 F.
Is 98.6 an american-only thing?
Re: Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)
#5I have always felt that 37C was way too precise an answer for a human's body temperature. How is it that a measurement based on the freezing and boiling point for water coincidentally lands on a nice even number for a human's body temperature.
It's one of my issues with biological sciences that they sometimes try to come up with precise answers as they do in physics or chemistry, when most of the time answers, such as this, should be phrased as "around 37C" instead of "it's 37C".
Re: Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)
#6Not sure if it's all the countries, but I have always heard the normal body temperature in Celsius stated as 36.5, which is 97.7 F. Is 98.6 an american-only thing?
In my country is more like: Normally you should be 36.x; 37 would be a little bit high but not yet fever.
I personally think it really isn't that important though, because how people measure it is way more imprecise/fluctuant than the standard itself.
Re: Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)
#7I have always felt that 37C was way too precise an answer for a human's body temperature. How is it that a measurement based on the freezing and boiling point for water coincidentally lands on a nice even number for a human's body temperature. It's one of my issues with biological sciences that they sometimes try to come up with precise answers as they do in physics or chemistry, when most of the time answers, such a…
Even “around” is meaningless without context. A hot day is around 37c (+/- 10), a healthy person is around 37c (+/- 1) and a manufacturing process could call for a temp around 37c (+/- 0.1).
Re: Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)
#8Not sure if it's all the countries, but I have always heard the normal body temperature in Celsius stated as 36.5, which is 97.7 F. Is 98.6 an american-only thing?
We (Australia) have always in my experience taught and been taught a range.
eg:
> You probably have a fever if your temperature is 38°C or higher.
> A normal temperature is around 36-37°C, although it depends on your age, what you’ve been doing, the time of day and how you take the measurement.
( further notes on taking temp., children, etc. )
Re: Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)
#9In Poland normal has always been considered 36.6C, which is 97.9F, which the article states as a proposed new normal.
Re: Time to redefine normal body temperature? (2020)
#10"In Wunderlich’s day, tuberculosis, syphilis, chronic gum disease, and other inflammatory conditions that can raise body temperature were common"
That part resonates with me. I had a pretty bad tooth infection after delaying seeing a dentist for a cavity. (which is a mistake I will not make again), and during the few months I had a body temp probably a degree celsius higher than usual.
Given the state of dental health over 150 years ago and that a lot of data came from soldiers there may just have been a lot of inflammation going on.