• @Blossom Is A Blessing To This Community, Let Us Be A Blessing To Her
    Click Here For More Information
  • Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

Using Body Temp

slayers

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
165
Im thinking.... Basing a food as good or bad based on whether or not it can increase body temp seems rather foolish?
First how do you even get a consistent accurate reading on body temp



Measurement method - Normal temperature range

Rectal 36.6°C to 38°C (97.9°F to 100.4°F)

Ear 35.8°C to 38°C (96.4°F to 100.4°F)

Oral 35.5°C to 37.5°C (95.9°F to 99.5°F)

Axillary 34.7°C to 37.3°C (94.5°F to 99.1°F)
 

Asimov

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
162
Fully agreed. My 30 second $2.99 digital oral is fairly consistent (+/- .2 degree F in the same mouth position) however, it's also consistently about a degree and a half cooler than my real temp (as measured by fairly expensive clinical units, and friends fairly expensive swipe units).

Imagine if, misguided by my el cheapo wal-mart thermometer, I thought my 97.4 temp was a health problem and started to "eat for heat" ie: "eat for massive cortisol production while getting fat" to "fix" my "low temperature".

Ray talks about this, pulse and temp are only a snapshot in time. Your temp can be OK pre-meal due to high cortisol production working to keep systems running adequately, only to drop a degree or 2 post meal after cortisol production slows and the bodies true metabolic rate is revealed. It's more important to get a trend and compare multiple temp devices against one another than it is to aim for the actual number.
 

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,780
Location
UK
Asimov said:
Fully agreed. My 30 second $2.99 digital oral is fairly consistent (+/- .2 degree F in the same mouth position) however, it's also consistently about a degree and a half cooler than my real temp (as measured by fairly expensive clinical units, and friends fairly expensive swipe units).

That's interesting, do you think that a more expensive mercury thermometer would get rid of the problem?
 

Jenn

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
1,035
Its relative. Using the same thermometer, take your temp in the same place every time. I use my left arm pit....I am right handed....and my right rm pit can be as much as 1 degree off. Yeah, if your temp drops after eating, that's useful info. If your temp reaches normal after eating, that's useful info too.

It's not about chasing a magic number or magic food, it's about learning how to pay attention.
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
When I first started charting temps
the variation among different thermometers drove me crazy.

I found that all the cheapish digital units varied among themselves
and all differed from what the doctors offices' devices said--differed low.

So I bought one of those Geratherm liquid (mercury free) thermometers.
It was consistently about a degree or more higher than the average of my digital thermometers.

Then I bought another Geratherm just to see if the two would be consistent with each other.
They were.

So I've been using the Geratherms.
The drawback is that they're slow.
Takes several minutes.

I have thought I could figure out how low a given digital is, based upon comparison with a Geratherm
as the standard,
then just use the digital and make the adjustment upwards--for greater speed.
 

Asimov

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
162
jyb said:
Asimov said:
Fully agreed. My 30 second $2.99 digital oral is fairly consistent (+/- .2 degree F in the same mouth position) however, it's also consistently about a degree and a half cooler than my real temp (as measured by fairly expensive clinical units, and friends fairly expensive swipe units).

That's interesting, do you think that a more expensive mercury thermometer would get rid of the problem?

Probably, but I guess it's a question of how many thermometers do I want to own (answer: one).

But I'm not so much worried about myself, I'm worried that some person who doesn't know anything about oral/rectal/axillary temp differentials taking the "temp" advice to heart, and then being convinced that they're hypothyroid because they take a sip of ice water, then take their oral temp, and see a 95.5 degree reading.
 

key

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
122
narouz said:
When I first started charting temps
the variation among different thermometers drove me crazy.

I found that all the cheapish digital units varied among themselves
and all differed from what the doctors offices' devices said--differed low.

So I bought one of those Geratherm liquid (mercury free) thermometers.
It was consistently about a degree or more higher than the average of my digital thermometers.

Then I bought another Geratherm just to see if the two would be consistent with each other.
They were.

So I've been using the Geratherms.
The drawback is that they're slow.
Takes several minutes.

I have thought I could figure out how low a given digital is, based upon comparison with a Geratherm
as the standard,
then just use the digital and make the adjustment upwards--for greater speed.

Maybe you were just not waiting long enough for the digital thermometer to get an accurate reading? I've found that you need to wait about 5 minutes to get an accurate reading.
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
key said:
narouz said:
When I first started charting temps
the variation among different thermometers drove me crazy.

I found that all the cheapish digital units varied among themselves
and all differed from what the doctors offices' devices said--differed low.

So I bought one of those Geratherm liquid (mercury free) thermometers.
It was consistently about a degree or more higher than the average of my digital thermometers.

Then I bought another Geratherm just to see if the two would be consistent with each other.
They were.

So I've been using the Geratherms.
The drawback is that they're slow.
Takes several minutes.

I have thought I could figure out how low a given digital is, based upon comparison with a Geratherm
as the standard,
then just use the digital and make the adjustment upwards--for greater speed.

Maybe you were just not waiting long enough for the digital thermometer to get an accurate reading? I've found that you need to wait about 5 minutes to get an accurate reading.

All of my digitals make a "beep" after they have arrived at what they think is the correct temp,
and then--isn't that temperature locked in?
Maybe not...I just assumed that it was. :roll:
 

kiran

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
1,054
narouz said:
All of my digitals make a "beep" after they have arrived at what they think is the correct temp,
and then--isn't that temperature locked in?
Maybe not...I just assumed that it was. :roll:

It isn't on mine, it keeps going up, albeit more slowly.
 

Dan W

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
1,528
My Vicks underarm thermometer stays locked in after beeping, making it inaccurate on the first few tries.

Like Narouz, I went with the Geratherm because of problems with digital models. It's a pain to "reset" it though, so I'm curious if people have a digital model that works well for them.
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,371
Location
USA
Geratherm or an old school mercury thermometer works best.
 

key

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
122
narouz said:
key said:
narouz said:
When I first started charting temps
the variation among different thermometers drove me crazy.

I found that all the cheapish digital units varied among themselves
and all differed from what the doctors offices' devices said--differed low.

So I bought one of those Geratherm liquid (mercury free) thermometers.
It was consistently about a degree or more higher than the average of my digital thermometers.

Then I bought another Geratherm just to see if the two would be consistent with each other.
They were.

So I've been using the Geratherms.
The drawback is that they're slow.
Takes several minutes.

I have thought I could figure out how low a given digital is, based upon comparison with a Geratherm
as the standard,
then just use the digital and make the adjustment upwards--for greater speed.

Maybe you were just not waiting long enough for the digital thermometer to get an accurate reading? I've found that you need to wait about 5 minutes to get an accurate reading.

All of my digitals make a "beep" after they have arrived at what they think is the correct temp,
and then--isn't that temperature locked in?
Maybe not...I just assumed that it was. :roll:

For me digital is only accurate if I leave it under my armpit for at least a couple minutes before turning it on.
 

Lucy

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
70
key said:
For me digital is only accurate if I leave it under my armpit for at least a couple minutes before turning it on.

I don't know what wrong with these (or with me ;) ), but it's definitely a case with most of them, they need to be left in much longer than stated on the package.
 

Rodzilla

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
6
Asimov said:
Imagine if, misguided by my el cheapo wal-mart thermometer, I thought my 97.4 temp was a health problem and started to "eat for heat" ie: "eat for massive cortisol production while getting fat" to "fix" my "low temperature". .
I didn't realize that eating this way caused an increase in cortisol, I thought it would have been the opposite.
 

Asimov

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
162
Rodzilla said:
Asimov said:
Imagine if, misguided by my el cheapo wal-mart thermometer, I thought my 97.4 temp was a health problem and started to "eat for heat" ie: "eat for massive cortisol production while getting fat" to "fix" my "low temperature". .
I didn't realize that eating this way caused an increase in cortisol, I thought it would have been the opposite.
Overeating is a surefire method to increase cortisol production. One of cortisol's primary functions is to help the body deal with calorie excess.
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,371
Location
USA
Asimov said:
Overeating is a surefire method to increase cortisol production. One of cortisol's primary functions is to help the body deal with calorie excess.

Asimov, I have never heard this. Do you mind providing proof of this?
 

Asimov

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
162
Proof? Yes. I don't play the pubmed game on forums. Unfortunately I've found it to be a monumental time waster for myself.

Biological plausability, no problem. Cortisol increases glycogen production (both glycogenesis and gluconeogenesis) ramping up the rate at which the liver turns both carbs and proteins into glycogen. It also increases lypolysis, increasing the rate at which the body releases fatty acids into the blood stream, allowing them to be metabolized.

The reasoning is pretty simple: too much food can be a stressor. Your body deals with this stress by ramping up cortisol (to cover the gap between the energy required to complete a task and the energy available to complete the task) to increase the body's metabolic rate for a short period of time.

If your body didn't posses this ability, everyone who left a Vegas buffet would go into Ketoacidosis and start hyperventilating. Simply put, the normal body can't produce insulin fast enough or in large enough quantities to deal with massive overeating. Cortisol can and will cover that gap, but at a cost.
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,371
Location
USA
Very interesting. I sincerely appreciate that explanation.
 

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,780
Location
UK
Asimov said:
Proof? Yes. I don't play the pubmed game on forums. Unfortunately I've found it to be a monumental time waster for myself.

Biological plausability, no problem. Cortisol increases glycogen production (both glycogenesis and gluconeogenesis) ramping up the rate at which the liver turns both carbs and proteins into glycogen. It also increases lypolysis, increasing the rate at which the body releases fatty acids into the blood stream, allowing them to be metabolized.

The reasoning is pretty simple: too much food can be a stressor. Your body deals with this stress by ramping up cortisol (to cover the gap between the energy required to complete a task and the energy available to complete the task) to increase the body's metabolic rate for a short period of time.

If your body didn't posses this ability, everyone who left a Vegas buffet would go into Ketoacidosis and start hyperventilating. Simply put, the normal body can't produce insulin fast enough or in large enough quantities to deal with massive overeating. Cortisol can and will cover that gap, but at a cost.

I think someone (not sure - RP or Danny Roddy or cliff?) mentions that excess carb isn't too bad - a chance it might store some fat, but followed by good things (antioxydants?).
 

Similar threads

Top