Who knows? Should we aim for that? We never took a human temperature until the time of Galileo and it wasn't recorded in units we could relate to now -- until hundreds of years later, when it was mostly measured in people residing in cities under the care of doctors and already under the influence of environmental toxins, Westernized stress, and poor sanitation.
Our current "standard" for homo sapiens temperature (98.6) was set over 150 years ago by Carl Reinhold August Wunderlich from a study of 25,000 people. Only in the last 25 years have we questioned this, and found that "average" is really 98.2. Who's to say this is a marker of "optimum health"? It's just an average. Has our environment affected this average? Has a higher prevalence of hormonal disruption? Has heavy immune system disruption? Has epigenetics?
So should either 98.6 or 98.2 be a target for someone trying to be "healthy"? Including people suspecting they are hypo-thyroid?
Same for pulse:
What was our pre-historic (in this case, before 400 years ago) human resting pulse rate? What is the best pulse for optimum health? For longevity?
I could only turn up some clues to the last question - Longevity. It seems the lower pulse rates are positively correlated with longer lifespans. Multiple studies confirm this. See below for some links.
Now I wonder if people, who feel normal energy, but are measuring their temperature and pulse rate, and are then trying to adjust these measurements upward, are asking for a shorter lifespan. At this point, all else being equal, I see this is entirely possible. Am I missing something? If not, is a warning appropriate?
References:
Normal Temperature
Hypo-T and Longevity
Thyroid path to longevity
Pulse Rate and Longevity
Ancients have slow pulse
What if low pulse is the new target?
Modern "Paleo" pulse results
Our current "standard" for homo sapiens temperature (98.6) was set over 150 years ago by Carl Reinhold August Wunderlich from a study of 25,000 people. Only in the last 25 years have we questioned this, and found that "average" is really 98.2. Who's to say this is a marker of "optimum health"? It's just an average. Has our environment affected this average? Has a higher prevalence of hormonal disruption? Has heavy immune system disruption? Has epigenetics?
So should either 98.6 or 98.2 be a target for someone trying to be "healthy"? Including people suspecting they are hypo-thyroid?
Same for pulse:
What was our pre-historic (in this case, before 400 years ago) human resting pulse rate? What is the best pulse for optimum health? For longevity?
I could only turn up some clues to the last question - Longevity. It seems the lower pulse rates are positively correlated with longer lifespans. Multiple studies confirm this. See below for some links.
Now I wonder if people, who feel normal energy, but are measuring their temperature and pulse rate, and are then trying to adjust these measurements upward, are asking for a shorter lifespan. At this point, all else being equal, I see this is entirely possible. Am I missing something? If not, is a warning appropriate?
References:
Normal Temperature
Hypo-T and Longevity
Thyroid path to longevity
Pulse Rate and Longevity
Ancients have slow pulse
What if low pulse is the new target?
Modern "Paleo" pulse results