What's normal paleolithic human temperature and pulse?

[Such_Saturation]

Personally I skim milk It is also becoming increasingly difficult to eat other animals for me.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Are you suggesting that Dr. Peat is always right? From what I've read of him he's a remarkably humble man who is the first to admit the possibility of being fallible.

Also, this quote shows another example of how strongly Peat feels about the medical establishment:

"Now that our public health establishment has eliminated smoking from public places, maybe they can find a way to reduce stress and disease by removing morons from positions of power.' - RP

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/ep ... rone.shtml

 

[Stuart]

Now Such_ you're the epitome of a Peat purist. I admire that.

Peat purist?

I wouldn't take it that far. I think he's more of what is becoming more popular now, and that is a mix of Peat with something like Weston Price. Call it "Peat-Price," where people like Peat because of "sugar" but also like their whole milk and daily muscle meats.

Are you suggesting that Dr. Peat is always right? From what I've read of him he's a remarkably humble man who is the first to admit the possibility of being fallible.

Yes but there are some things that Peat feels pretty strongly about:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=7242&p=90384#p90384

Not sure whether Such_ would agree with you. :)
Read your linked comment. I agree with all the points you mention.

 

[Such_Saturation]

I don't quite agree with bolding words, if that's what you mean

 

[Brian]

No, they didn't actually. I think that's the point. They certainly may have been eaten or died accidentally before their time though. Life was very difficult, so the optimally healthy ones survived the longest.

The longest lived Northern Europeans before agriculture who died of old age were probably only into their 60 or 70's. While a well nourished and active person today can expect to live to their 80's or 90's. I think the main difference is year round availability of 3 meals per day and never having to adapt to constant cold. Both of which I clearly observe to raise my pulse and body temperature.

 

[Amazoniac]

Now Such_ you're the epitome of a Peat purist. I admire that.

Peat purist?

I wouldn't take it that far. I think he's more of what is becoming more popular now, and that is a mix of Peat with something like Weston Price. Call it "Peat-Price," where people like Peat because of "sugar" but also like their whole milk and daily muscle meats.

Unlikely. You have to eat at least 30g of PUFA per day to be admitted at the WAPF..

 

[XPlus]

I was reading this a couple of days ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse

Self-explanatory much?


That awful feeling of being athletically well trained

 

[Such_Saturation]

I got down to 44 during the Insanity program. It actually was higher while asleep

 

[EnoreeG]

I couldn't care less what my ancestors in Northern Europe were like in the paleolithic era. I'm living in a completely different environment now. Much warmer and sunnier. I have to adapt just like they did to what food and climate are available and pay attention to how my body responds.

I'm sure if my distant ancestors had access to pregnenolone, supplemental magnesium, dairy, and reliable year round carb sources they would be all over that.

I would expect that my particular paleo Northern ancestors had lower temperature, pulse, and lifespan than I am capable of now.

EDITORIAL COMMENT regarding the original post:

I agree with you Brian, as far as what you say here. My use of the concept of the "paleolithic human" was only to bring awareness to the fact that what we now consider normal temperature, whether 98.6 F or more recently, 98.2 F, is all "after the fact" of the introduction of modern technology, toxins, stresses, and thus inflammation and epigenetic changes to our physiology. All/any of these factors could have so recently distorted an "average" temperature, that we really have little idea whether 98.6, or any other value, is the right target for "optimum" health. Or, these modern "enhancements" to our environment could have had no effect toward changing the "paleolithic" temp/pulse average value at all.

Someone like Weston A. Price could have provided a fairly good idea of what temperatures averaged, world-wide, or within different societies, if he had taken this measurement, and his measurements would have been able to rule out distortions caused by heavy chronic infections or widespread borderline hypothyroidism or a similar influence.

In summary, knowing that epigenetics can change things in a few generations, and not having anything like a large sample of "preindustrial" humans, how do we know we should target the current "average" as a healthy temperature?

 

[Giraffe]

Just curious what the 'different story' you are referring to is ?

Aging, Resting Pulse Rate, and Longevity

This is from a discussion of the study:

"The finding of the current study suggests that the decreased adrenergic response seen with aging is an important mechanism related to lower RPR and its protective effect, and this is an important subject for future research."

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777842

Strange in my opinion is the conlusion of the study that RPR declines in the oldest old might serve as a simple prognostic marker. When you look at the data you see that the standard deviation is three times the difference between the mean RPR for survivors and nonsurvivors. So there is a huge overlap.

----

Regarding the abstract I linked... Strategies to enhance longevity and independent function

The purpose of the study was to analyze factors on survival and independent function from age 70 to 82, but assessments were only made at age 70 and 77. In 2002 (age 82) death certificates were reviewed. "End points were performance of basic and advanced tasks with ease at age 77 and survival to age 82."

I would expect the number of demented people to double between age 77 and age 82. In 2005, the year the study was published, there was a third assessment, but data were not included in the publication.

 

[tara]

Rakhimov (normal breathing) refers to studies suggesting significant increases in average resting ventilation rate over the last few decades, which he takes to suggest worsening chronic hidden hyperventilation. I wonder if this is also connected to the decrease in body temps, and to the huge increase in the consumption of metabolism-suppressing PUFAs?

I would expect context to be relevant to interpreting body temps. Lower body temps may be protective in conditions of inadequate nutrition, during which deficiencies of some nutrients can cause problems quicker at a higher metabolic rate (eg the Burr's experiment). Also, the distinction between higher temps sustained by higher thyroid metabolism compared with higher stress hormones seems likely to be relevant. I didn't get at the study, so don't know how they assessed temperatures.

People who feel normal energy are not the ones most likely to take radical measures to increase metaboism and temps. Those of us who are unwell are more likely to be looking for change.

 

[Brian]

Exactly.

We're warm-blooded animals who get cold very easily.

I was once doing geology field work in the Colorado mountains with a native Nigerian and he was wearing a thick sweater when it was 80+ degrees outside. Later that week it dropped down into the 50's and he looked like he wanted to die, because he was so miserable.

This was before I knew anything about Peat's work, but it made me think a little. Here's a guy whose body has been in year round temperatures of 80+ degrees his whole life, but yet he is wearing a sweater very comfortably. It would seem his body has never had to cold adapt. Ever. And the stress of that cold stimulus when it dipped down was extreme on him. He was really miserable despite wearing a coat, while I was fine wearing a t-shirt. It seemed his body wasn't capable of increasing his temperature without first going through an adaptation.

So it makes me wonder how much chronic stress we put on our body when we subject it to ambient temperatures below 80 degrees for long periods and maybe how much better it would work if it never had to. Maybe air conditioning is actually a health hazard below that point?

 

[tara]

So it makes me wonder how much chronic stress we put on our body when we subject it to ambient temperatures below 80 degrees for long periods and maybe how much better it would work if it never had to. Maybe air conditioning is actually a health hazard below that point?

I've been counting cold stress as a significant contributor to my metabolic health issues. Heating is expensive and most houses not well insulated here. I'd love to live in 26 C most of the time.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Later that week it dropped down into the 50's and he looked like he wanted to die, because he was so miserable.

Yaaaaassss. I bet he was super lean too. Like most Nigerians. Like most humans were pre PUFA cooking oils and easy access to cream products consumed in combination with flour products to get a whack of pufa, safa, and flour all at once and cause obesity.

Samoans only 75 years ago, pre-pufa, cream, and flour:

Samoans today, post-pufa, cream, and flour:

 

[tara]

I'm not advocating for lots of wheat and PUFA, but the pictures made me think - which of them looked happier - the hungry lean ones, or the abundantly fed ([edit to add:] but quite possibly malnourished) round ones?

 

[Stuart]

In summary, knowing that epigenetics can change things in a few generations, and not having anything like a large sample of "preindustrial" humans, how do we know we should target the current "average" as a healthy temperature?

That's the issue for me. If people have no detectable symptoms of an 'underactive' thyroid at a slightly loser basal temp than traditionally used to indicate a 'problem' doesn't that indicate that the traditionally used figure is simply the wrong one to use - or to ever have used.
Isn't that why 98.2 deg F is now considered to be a more appropriate 'normal' temp. And that may have been the case all along?

 

[Stuart]

In summary, knowing that epigenetics can change things in a few generations, and not having anything like a large sample of "preindustrial" humans, how do we know we should target the current "average" as a healthy temperature?

That's the issue for me. If people have no detectable symptoms of an 'underactive' thyroid at a slightly loser basal temp than traditionally used to indicate a 'problem' doesn't that indicate that the traditionally used figure is simply the wrong one to use - or to ever have used.
Isn't that why 98.2 deg F is now considered to be a more appropriate 'normal' temp. And that may have been the case all along? Certainly sold a lot more thyroid meds though.

 

[Suikerbuik]

Somebody knows why our body temperature is 37°C? Why isn't it 25 or 35 or 40°C? Has Peat written about it? It just comes to mind so excuse me if this has been discussed earlier and could have been found with the 'search bar'.

Obviously our enzymes work best at 37°C (not sure it there is a difference between 98.2 - 98.6 though), but enzymes could well have evolved to serve us on 30°C, not? (At what temperature do crocs run most fast?)

What is so special about 37°C?
- Was it the water temperature we evolved in?
- Was/is it the best temperature for preventing (climate induced) death of hyperthermia?
- Is it the just balance between protein denaturation and optimal enzyme function? (in almost every case we have studied quantum or biological phenoma, nature strives to be as efficient as possible; the folding of protein, photosynthesis, ..).
- Does 'cell water' at 37°C stores energy fostering reactions most efficiently?
- Is the reaction rate itself? Generally they say that the reaction rate increases by 2 times per 10°C increase in temperature. Though they recently found that brownian motion (in cells) is likely to be of lesser influence on particle motion.
- What is missing?

To stay on topic. One thing I find interesting about cold exposure, when dealing with robust health, is the increased metabolism induced by stimulation of brown fat synthesis. Is brown fat merely a stress respons or actually also defensive against metabolic problems - as it seems. Recently (only as matter of weeks ago) they found that patients with diabetes should live at 14 degrees celsius - not sure which markers improved. The study was preliminary, but the results only after 1 or 2 weeks were so promising that they couldn't wait publishing.. ? Read anyone?

 

[EnoreeG]

This could be the diabetes study you refer to Suik?

Cold therapy for Type-2

Interesting, but it hints that a lot more study is needed to understand the factors, now that this has been opened as a field of study. Keep it under surveillance for us!?

The article doesn't say whether the 14 degrees was greater or less than the ambient room or outdoor temperature the cohort was experiencing before the study began! Or what season it was. Besides many other things to treat as "variables" in such a study, the weather/indoor temperature is very important. Different results could have occurred in a different season. We all feel differing amounts of "energy" depending on the temperature. Many of us are ready for a fierce workout when the temperature is lower than normal for us, just psychologically because we know it will have a "warming" effect on our chilled body. This psychological factor alone could account for "readying muscles" for more energy production, via raising insulin sensitivity. In fact, I don't even remember pure brain control of insulin sensitivity ever having been tested. For all I know, what with body temp. etc. very much under control of the mind, why not insulin sensitivity?

Not trying to pick this study apart, Suik. I think it is revolutionary as it stands and begs in strong words for more research. I'm just spouting off things that it makes me realize! It shows more than anything how much we stupid humans take for granted. And how important a truly open mind is. Who would have thought to test insulin resistance against changes in temperature? Only an open, inquisitive mind.

 

[EnoreeG]

That's the issue for me. If people have no detectable symptoms of an 'underactive' thyroid at a slightly loser basal temp than traditionally used to indicate a 'problem' doesn't that indicate that the traditionally used figure is simply the wrong one to use - or to ever have used.
Isn't that why 98.2 deg F is now considered to be a more appropriate 'normal' temp. And that may have been the case all along? Certainly sold a lot more thyroid meds though.

Hmmm. Selling thyroid meds..... Yes, that could be a huge issue to research. The evolution of the field of thyroid medication and treatment! Presently it's an absolute gold mine. Becoming somewhat diminished in prestige now that integrative medicine is looking at the big picture and showing that many thyroid symptoms are due to leaky gut, adrenal fatigue, liver failure, etc. No gland/organ is an island.

But for years, thyroid was looked at as a somewhat mysteriously malfunctioning organ. An organ that just couldn't keep up with the stresses of modern man. And it was so easy to just recommend some drugs that adjusted for this (take them forever, too!). Then it became quite the efficiency to let people "test themselves" via temperature, knowing this would fill the waiting room with new patients. If there's anything the corporate world, including the drug/medical industry is good at, it's applying their efficiency experts to develop more cost-effective ways to bring in the profits.

I'm not saying that below average temperature is not caused by a thyroid condition. I'm saying practitioners who want to profit and don't mind misleading, are anything but timely and considerate enough to advise the public that there can be other causes of low temperature, and that it is not a conclusive sign that treatment is necessary. And they certainly aren't advising the public in the same piece of promotional advice, that there is a new "accepted" norm of temperature of 98.2, and that lower pulse relates to heightened longevity. These would be confusing and counterproductive to the practice.

Yes, for a while, because it was known that iodine supplementation was a great help for thyroid, iodine was pushed. It was in fact, known as an outstanding treatment for many things 100 years ago. But it seriously got in the way of modern medicine. At first it was used as part of a medicine, then it was excluded, and even iodized salt was deemphasized, while the iodine tincture we all used to use for cuts and scrapes in the mid-20th century was replaced by mercurochrome (no longer approved as safe by the FDA, btw) and merthiolate, both of which contain mercury. Yep, medical efficiency at work.

It's interesting to read about the rise and fall of iodine use by the American medical profession

History of Iodine use

Only finally, some practitioners are revealing some truths that were buried, or have come to light, but are commercially suppressed, because now those practitioners can raise their own efficiency and competitive advantage by selling a book that educates the public, and use a blog or speak on "summits" to publicize the book. I'm thankful for these. Only time will tell if their words are more correct that those of the non-published.