Does Heart Rate Matter As Much As Temperature?

[yerrag]

I don't believe this question has been asked. We know that temperature and heart rate can give us an initial assessment of our metabolic health.

We know that temperature much below 37C can be an indication of low metabolism, and we know that temperature higher than 37C is indicative of a fever that is most often associated with an infection. More often than not, we are biased towards being alarmed at a temperature over 37C, and the degree of alarm is increased the higher above 37C it is. Yet, we don't generally feel a sense of dread when the temperature is much below 37C, although we should be.

On the other hand, we are given to giving our heart rate a lot more latitude. A heart rate from 60-100 is considered normal, with heart rate above 100 being considered rapid enough to be called tachycardia. Yet on the low end, we find people touting their heart rate at 40 as being super healthy, which we don't agree with.

Because I find it easier to take heart rate measurements, I am given to tracking it more often than I track temperature. With my Samsung Galaxy S5, I can measure it anytime and anywhere. When I take my blood pressure with my Omron monitor, I also get my blood pressure. With temperature, I have to wait 12 minutes for my regular thermometer to register a stable reading. I have been wanting to get a Braun ear thermometer, but have put it off because I know the home kind can't be calibrated, and I just don't know where to get answers as to whether its factory calibration setting can be relied upon forever. I just know the hospital version of the Braun ear thermometer can be calibrated, but it's expensive.

Anyway, I've begun to think that taking my heart rate without taking my temperature isn't giving me much use. All I can say is that my heart rate fluctuates, and that it is within the normal range. I'm beginning to ask whether having a log of my temperature alone is better than having a log of my heart rate alone. It seems that the temperature says it more than the heart rate. If I'm warm enough, I can say I have a generally healthy metabolism, regardless of the heart rate. But if I have a high heart rate, let's say from 85-100, I may say I have a generally healthy metabolism, but I'm only kidding myself really because at the back of my mind, I'd be asking myself why my heart rate is this high. I'd be asking if my high heart rate is an indication of an inefficient heart beat. Maybe I have an acid-base imbalance, and the electrolytes are not in balance requiring more effort pumping blood from my heart. Maybe I'm just on my way to a tachycardic condition. Many maybe's.

Certainly, I would like to measure both my temperature and heart rate together. Having both these as data would give me a better assessment of my metabolic health. Still, I think temperature is the key measure. If I have a waking temperature of 36.5 C and a temperature of 37C by 5 pm, I would be satisfied.

Then, I would start looking at my heart rate. If my temperature is within spec, I will start looking at my heart rate, noting the ups and downs. I will start to look at why my heart rate is down, and why it is up. Especially when it is very low, and when it is very high. All this time, my temperature is within spec - from 36.5C when I wake up to 37C when it's 5 pm.

Let me ask you what I'm asking myself.

Assuming the temperature remain within spec, would a lower heart rate be considered better than a higher heart rate? Would 60 bpm be better than 85 bpm?

My answer to that is yes. And my reason is that it takes less work for the heart to do the work needed to heat itself up. It takes less work for the heart to do the same amount of work, and therefore it is more efficient, and with this efficiency, the person is healthier.

What do you think?

n.b. Seems like I can't edit the title. "Oes" is "Does"

 

[Luckytype]

Temps matter more because a lot of chemical reactions require a warm temp for the enzymatic activity to work optimally or at all

HR increases even when temps are increased artificially in many cases as a way to circulate blood to maintain the temp(likely by cooling and shunting blood to extremities.)

 

[yerrag]

Temps matter more because a lot of chemical reactions require a warm temp for the enzymatic activity to work optimally or at all

HR increases even when temps are increased artificially in many cases as a way to circulate blood to maintain the temp(likely by cooling and shunting blood to extremities.)

Thanks for being the only one to respond. It must be because the answer would seem to be so obvious that it's not worth responding to for many.

But I fall into the trap of checking my heart rate and not my temperature because it's easier to do. And I don't think I'm alone.

If temperature is so important, I don't think people give it enough attention, even in this forum. I bet there only a fraction of a percent here own even an ear thermometer, which makes taking temps easier without sacrificing accuracy. Most just settle for a regular thermometer, and don't even take enough time to nestle in their armpits, like 12 minutes, to get a stable and more accurate reading.

 

[yerrag]

I would post a poll on who owns an ear thermometer, but the responses are usually so few that it isn't even a good sampling. And those that actually respond may be skewed towards owning one.

 

[Luckytype]

@yerrag think of it like this: depending on the actual ability of the hearts left ventricle to fill up and stretch with blood is an independent variable for each person. Some will have never been active(even in a healthy sense, not elite sense) and thus their heart will require more beats to pass the same amount of blood in a given time. Anywhere between roughly 65-80 given each person will have different circumstances defining that hearts contractility. Some will be higher, some lower

Now taking into account we know that a given a temp of roughllllyy 98.3-99F is the best place for a majority of humans to have the best ability of enzymatic reactions purely because the enzyme(s) works best at a certain temp and using youthful active subjects as a reasonable reference we know where pulse but more importantly temp should be. Obviously there are ways in labs to confirm much of this but we here dont have the time or access or money to do this. We know that with age substrates run out or run thin, enzymes wear out(even in ice cream eating binges people can get transient lactose intolerance they dont see elsewhere) but we know enzymes plain and simple like a certain temp.

There is way more systemic variability that governs heartrate than there is governing the best place for enzymes to do their jobs, and thats even ignoring nonenzymatic things. Its just the fastest reference. Temps have to be there.

I have used a girlfriends ear thermometer and its garbage, temps up down and all over. Zero repeatability. I would get better accuracy with a dewalt infrared temp gun. Ear thermometers suck, stick with oral for 5ish or more minutes and if youre a mouth breather do axillary for 5-8 or even 10. Its so much better.

 

[yerrag]

@yerrag think of it like this: depending on the actual ability of the hearts left ventricle to fill up and stretch with blood is an independent variable for each person. Some will have never been active(even in a healthy sense, not elite sense) and thus their heart will require more beats to pass the same amount of blood in a given time. Anywhere between roughly 65-80 given each person will have different circumstances defining that hearts contractility. Some will be higher, some lower

I'm in whole agreement to that. The question I posed is more about an individual person and the variability of heart rate with respect to his temperature being constant.

Let's just suppose I have a temperature of 37C all the time, and I just take heart rate readings. What does it say when my average heart rate for the week (to smooth out variability) is 60, and last week it was 80. Does this mean my metabolic rate was decreased? Or does this mean that my heart was more efficient having to pump at a lower rate? A lowered metabolism is not a good thing, but a more efficient heart rate (and by extension, metabolism) is a good thing.

How would you see it?

 

[yerrag]

I have used a girlfriends ear thermometer and its garbage, temps up down and all over. Zero repeatability. I would get better accuracy with a dewalt infrared temp gun. Ear thermometers suck, stick with oral for 5ish or more minutes and if youre a mouth breather do axillary for 5-8 or even 10. Its so much better.

Bummer. I just ordered a Braun Thermoscan 5. I hope your girlfriend's ear thermometer is a different brand.

Isn't an infrared temp gun only taking skin temperature? Wouldn't that be less accurate (in getting internal body temperature), even if it is more precise (repeatable and consistent)?

I don't like using the oral or axillary thermometers because it takes a long time to get a reading, although I agree with you that they are more accurate and repeatable. I was hoping a good ear thermometer would be fast, accurate, and repeatable.

 

[Luckytype]

I'm in whole agreement to that. The question I posed is more about an individual person and the variability of heart rate with respect to his temperature being constant.

Let's just suppose I have a temperature of 37C all the time, and I just take heart rate readings. What does it say when my average heart rate for the week (to smooth out variability) is 60, and last week it was 80. Does this mean my metabolic rate was decreased? Or does this mean that my heart was more efficient having to pump at a lower rate? A lowered metabolism is not a good thing, but a more efficient heart rate (and by extension, metabolism) is a good thing.

How would you see it?

You have to look at your whole week to get an idea of the bigger picture. What was your hydration/salt status, what physical things were you doing, how many pro metabolic things being eaten, ambient temps, emotional stress. Its really tough to say, but like for me, my pulse is higher when I am warmer...but many things can influence my temps. Just as one example.

So for you, either youre more relaxed, less warm, maybe less fed or using less metabolic support. This is assuming all environmental things and your activity is exact

Bummer. I just ordered a Braun Thermoscan 5. I hope your girlfriend's ear thermometer is a different brand.

Isn't an infrared temp gun only taking skin temperature? Wouldn't that be less accurate (in getting internal body temperature), even if it is more precise (repeatable and consistent)?

I don't like using the oral or axillary thermometers because it takes a long time to get a reading, although I agree with you that they are more accurate and repeatable. I was hoping a good ear thermometer would be fast, accurate, and repeatable.

I believe hers to be a braun as well, but maybe hers was a faulty one. Ill double check and report back. Just take the time to compare several readings.

And sorry, the temp gun was if say I was shooting the beam into my ear the exact same time every time. I kinda just meant it as a comparison because of my personally poor experience with the inner ear temp taking...could be my error all the time though too.

 

[yerrag]

more relaxed

yes, with a lower heart rate that is plausible

less warm

couldn't be as temperature is constant (the assumption I posed)

maybe less fed or using less metabolic support

more efficient then, maybe?

I believe hers to be a braun as well, but maybe hers was a faulty one. Ill double check and report back. Just take the time to compare several readings.

Thanks again for taking the time!

 

[yerrag]

You have to look at your whole week to get an idea of the bigger picture. What was your hydration/salt status, what physical things were you doing, how many pro metabolic things being eaten, ambient temps, emotional stress. Its really tough to say, but like for me, my pulse is higher when I am warmer...but many things can influence my temps. Just as one example.

So for you, either youre more relaxed, less warm, maybe less fed or using less metabolic support. This is assuming all environmental things and your activity is exact



I believe hers to be a braun as well, but maybe hers was a faulty one. Ill double check and report back. Just take the time to compare several readings.

And sorry, the temp gun was if say I was shooting the beam into my ear the exact same time every time. I kinda just meant it as a comparison because of my personally poor experience with the inner ear temp taking...could be my error all the time though too.

I got my Braun Thermoscan 5 (model 6500) off Ebay. I took my chance with an open box unit, and it came to be in good condition, complete with an unopened box of sleeves for the tip. I had the chance to compare it with the readings taken from an old mercury-type thermometer (China), a typical regular and affordable modern electronic thermometer with an LED readout (China).

It only took a minute for the mercury thermometer to stabilize at 36.2C. For the electronic thermometer, it took 10 minutes to stabilize at 36.6C. Both readings were taken from the armpit.

For the ear thermometer, I got a reading of 37.1.

Since the armpit temperature is generally lower than the oral temperature by 0.5C, and assuming the ear reading is same as that of the oral method, the electronic thermometer reading of 36.6 corresponds to the ear thermometer reading of 37.1C

I have to note that I only got an ear temperature reading of 37.1 only when I made sure I was not pressing the tip of the ear thermometer against my ear, to consciously avoid trying to fit the tip into the ear hole. When I was doing that, I would be getting a higher reading of 37.4. I have to be conscious of aiming the ear thermometer straight into the hole.

Now that I have gotten a feel for using the ear thermometer, so that I'm using it the right way (I think), I could rely on it to take accurate readings of my temperature. If there is a doubt on its repeatability, I could just as easily take 3 readings and just average out.

To keep the readings from going all over the place, it's important to be consistent with where to put the tip and where to aim it. If I'm taking my own temperature with it, there is less chance of getting readings that are far off from each other. But if I were to take readings for somebody else, I think I could get readings all over the place, just because I cannot have a proper sense of the placement of the tip of the ear thermometer, and the direction of aim into the ear hole.

Overall, I'm quite happy with the Braun ear thermometer.

 

[Luckytype]

I got my Braun Thermoscan 5 (model 6500) off Ebay. I took my chance with an open box unit, and it came to be in good condition, complete with an unopened box of sleeves for the tip. I had the chance to compare it with the readings taken from an old mercury-type thermometer (China), a typical regular and affordable modern electronic thermometer with an LED readout (China).

It only took a minute for the mercury thermometer to stabilize at 36.2C. For the electronic thermometer, it took 10 minutes to stabilize at 36.6C. Both readings were taken from the armpit.

For the ear thermometer, I got a reading of 37.1.

Since the armpit temperature is generally lower than the oral temperature by 0.5C, and assuming the ear reading is same as that of the oral method, the electronic thermometer reading of 36.6 corresponds to the ear thermometer reading of 37.1C

I have to note that I only got an ear temperature reading of 37.1 only when I made sure I was not pressing the tip of the ear thermometer against my ear, to consciously avoid trying to fit the tip into the ear hole. When I was doing that, I would be getting a higher reading of 37.4. I have to be conscious of aiming the ear thermometer straight into the hole.

Now that I have gotten a feel for using the ear thermometer, so that I'm using it the right way (I think), I could really on it to take accurate readings of my temperature. If there is a doubt on its repeatability, I could just as easily take 3 readings and just average out.

To keep the readings from going all over the place, it's important to be consistent with where to put the tip and where to aim it. If I'm taking my own temperature with it, there is less chance of getting readings that are far off from each other. But if I were to take readings for somebody else, I think I could get readings all over the place, just because I cannot have a proper sense of the placement of the tip of the ear thermometer, and the direction of aim into the ear hole.

Overall, I'm quite happy with the Braun ear thermometer.

Very cool. I suppose even if the ear one was innaccurate(how close or far from actual) hypothetically, the precision(how close within a group of measurements) of being able to measure the temp repeatably is more important as long as you knew where the temp reference was with a mercury thermometer. Great buy

 

[yerrag]

Very cool. I suppose even if the ear one was innaccurate(how close or far from actual) hypothetically, the precision(how close within a group of measurements) of being able to measure the temp repeatability be more important as long as you knew where the temp reference was with a mercury thermometer. Great buy

It surely is. Price was 19.99 with free shipping (USPS though ). In case anyone is interested, the seller at Ebay is compupro1953. She was very attentive and replies and ships quickly.

 

[ilikecats]