61–70 of 148 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To add, < 38°C (100.4°F) is not considered a fever but subfebrile.
Sometimes I feel more sick having 37.5° than 38°, I don't know why.
The whole enterprise of trying to find "a normal" temperature seems silly to me, increasingly after getting two kids with fevers every now and then. We use both high-quality ear canal and anal thermometers, and while we have enough statistical grounds to unbias their results compared to each other, there remains significant variance. I.e. if we use an anal or ear canal thermometer makes temperature vary ±0.4 °C. Then…
> if we use an anal or ear canal thermometer makes temperature vary ±0.4 °C. This part is just known, though: the usual "close enough" standard for core temperature is an anal temperature and everything else you have to adjust. (Everything else you say I agree with, though.)
(For what it's worth, my local hospitals use ear canal temperatures for diagnostic purposes.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if we use an anal or ear canal thermometer makes temperature vary ±0.4 °C. This part is just known, though: the usual "close enough" standard for core temperature is an anal temperature and everything else you have to adjust. (Everything else you say I agree with, though.)
I know that's common wisdom, but I also have started to doubt it -- when variation is so large, does it really matter whether you measure in the ear or the butt? (For what it's worth, my local hospitals use ear canal temperatures for diagnostic purposes.)
The whole enterprise of trying to find "a normal" temperature seems silly to me, increasingly after getting two kids with fevers every now and then. We use both high-quality ear canal and anal thermometers, and while we have enough statistical grounds to unbias their results compared to each other, there remains significant variance. I.e. if we use an anal or ear canal thermometer makes temperature vary ±0.4 °C. Then…
> [One key possibility] ... Lower metabolic rate: One of the biggest determinants of body temperature is your metabolic rate. Like a car engine that’s idling, your body expends energy just keeping things going, and that generates heat. A lower metabolic rate in modern times could be due to higher body mass (some studies link this with lower metabolic rate), or better medical treatments, preventive measures, and overa…
Now, as an adult, my metabolism nosedived. I barely feel like eating once a day. It's not abnormal to get temps in the 96s, though that could just be the cheap covid thermometers.
> [One key possibility] ... Lower metabolic rate: One of the biggest determinants of body temperature is your metabolic rate. Like a car engine that’s idling, your body expends energy just keeping things going, and that generates heat. A lower metabolic rate in modern times could be due to higher body mass (some studies link this with lower metabolic rate), or better medical treatments, preventive measures, and overa…
It seems very likely to be metabolic rate. Most people are way more sedentary than in the past. I'm curious how direct it is. If someone starts exercising from being sedentary for years does their body temperature raise appreciably?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have always been taught that 37C is the upper limit, actually bordering on fever. So 36.5C or even a bit lower was always considered healthy and fine.
Same here, 36-37 normal, over 37 fever.
Currently the top comment says "Basically, in our experience, anything below 38.4 °C could just as well be caused by any of a number of non-fever conditions at something like a 90 % confidence level" ... which is panicky territory for me. But anything under 38 is fine.
As 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.
I have always been taught that 37C is the upper limit, actually bordering on fever. So 36.5C or even a bit lower was always considered healthy and fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know that's common wisdom, but I also have started to doubt it -- when variation is so large, does it really matter whether you measure in the ear or the butt? (For what it's worth, my local hospitals use ear canal temperatures for diagnostic purposes.)
Of course it does matter, look up systematic error and random error.
1. If the ear temperature are consistently wrong (systematic error) it is very easy to debias them and they become equivalent (modulo random error) to anal temperatures.
2. Perhaps cephalic temperature is a better diagnostic tool than gut temperature to evaluate the effects of fever? After all, the brain is a more sensitive organ than the butt.