What's normal paleolithic human temperature and pulse?

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
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
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
Hunga don't want live forever. Hunga take mammoth thyroid. Hunga live on edge all times :cool:
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
Amazoniac said:
Such_, you have the ability to drain the moral of any thread you want in here, it only takes a phrase + smiley. Haha!

My bad :oops: I do prefer a lighter mood for debate, though.
 

Stuart

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
317
Interesting.Thanks EnoreeG.
I was noticing a lot of mention in the medical press that 98.6 deg F 'ideal' body temp was based on out of date science too. I think the symptomatic diagnosis of a thyroid that is actually underactive - chronic low energy- is the more important indicator than some arbitrary body temperature number.
Particularly when that arbitrary figure is based on antiquated research.

Should get a spirited response from the faithful too :)
 
OP
E

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
Amazoniac said:
Such_, you have the ability to drain the moral of any thread you want in here, it only takes a phrase + smiley. Haha!

A very sage human once said something like "Every communication or human endeavor can be characterized as either: 1) Making something out of nothing, or 2) Making nothing out of something."

Such_ often chooses option 2. A short, Hunga inspired excitement, I'm sure. Long live Hunga, regardless of what he wants. My saying this is admittedly choosing to make an option 2 statement. Pardon sought from all.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
Well, to be honest you guys do seem to make something out of most things that are in some manner perpendicular to the view of Raymond Peat. In this regard there seems to be more of a teleological disagreement at the base, no matter what we would like there to be.
 

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
EnoreeG said:
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.
The one study linked in my opinion is twisting statistics. Same study, different story: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15621214

All the other links are ... opinions?
 

Stuart

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
317
Such_Saturation said:
Well, to be honest you guys do seem to make something out of most things that are in some manner perpendicular to the view of Raymond Peat. In this regard there seems to be more of a teleological disagreement at the base, no matter what we would like there to be.

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. And I do find it interesting that you seem to think I take a perpendicular perspective to 'everything Peat'. I think he's got blind spot about the importance to human health of the microbiome. That's all.
And when I started the '_ breast milk' thread, I was happy to be proved wrong.
Instead, all I've got is various combinations of 'our evolutionary heritage isn't relevant anymore'
' the microbiome is a bacterial infection waiting to eat you up'
and of course my all time favourite ' bacteria just make things rot'

Mixed in with a great many really thought provoking comments which have made the whole thing an absolute learning experience for me.
Also, from the outset the moderators rightly put this in the debate forum, which as far as I'm aware is expressly intended to foster constructive debate about Peatarian dietary principles.
Surely you don't think that process is only to reinforce those principles? If a debate shows that some principle is actually not very sensible, surely that's a good outcome?
To whit, almost to my surprise, there's been a constant trickle of comments, from many different commenters, that reinforce the idea that feeding commensal bacteria in the human colon at least some of their preferred food is actually a very good idea.
Now Such_ you're the epitome of a Peat purist. I admire that. But I have to ask you, if Dr. Peat admitted tomorrow that he had been ignoring the role COLONIC (not in the S.I, in the huge bag next to it which is ALL bacteria, whatever food you eat) bacteria play in human health all along, would you suddenly change your tune too?
I hope you have an independent enough mind that you wouldn't. '
 

Stuart

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
317
Giraffe said:
EnoreeG said:
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.
The one study linked in my opinion is twisting statistics. Same study, different story: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15621214

All the other links are ... opinions?
Just curious what the 'different story' you are referring to is ?
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
Stuart said:
Such_Saturation said:
Well, to be honest you guys do seem to make something out of most things that are in some manner perpendicular to the view of Raymond Peat. In this regard there seems to be more of a teleological disagreement at the base, no matter what we would like there to be.

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. And I do find it interesting that you seem to think I take a perpendicular perspective to 'everything Peat'. I think he's got blind spot about the importance to human health of the microbiome. That's all.
And when I started the '_ breast milk' thread, I was happy to be proved wrong.
Instead, all I've got is various combinations of 'our evolutionary heritage isn't relevant anymore'
' the microbiome is a bacterial infection waiting to eat you up'
and of course my all time favourite ' bacteria just make things rot'

Mixed in with a great many really thought provoking comments which have made the whole thing an absolute learning experience for me.
Also, from the outset the moderators rightly put this in the debate forum, which as far as I'm aware is expressly intended to foster constructive debate about Peatarian dietary principles.
Surely you don't think that process is only to reinforce those principles? If a debate shows that some principle is actually not very sensible, surely that's a good outcome?
To whit, almost to my surprise, there's been a constant trickle of comments, from many different commenters, that reinforce the idea that feeding commensal bacteria in the human colon at least some of their preferred food is actually a very good idea.
Now Such_ you're the epitome of a Peat purist. I admire that. But I have to ask you, if Dr. Peat admitted tomorrow that he had been ignoring the role COLONIC (not in the S.I, in the huge bag next to it which is ALL bacteria, whatever food you eat) bacteria play in human health all along, would you suddenly change your tune too?
I hope you have an independent enough mind that you wouldn't. '

What I meant is there is always an underlying direction that makes you come up with these things, and Ray Peat admits this (for example it might be his understanding of the properties of water), so when someone claims to be an "independent" thinker and then consistently comes up with pro-PUFA, pro-cold ideas right after a pro-fiber stance, I having observed this in many "independent" thinkers start to question the grasp they have on their train of though. This in no way implies that I think fiber is bad or anything.
 
OP
E

EnoreeG

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
272
Stuart said:
Giraffe said:
EnoreeG said:
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.
The one study linked in my opinion is twisting statistics. Same study, different story: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15621214

All the other links are ... opinions?
Just curious what the 'different story' you are referring to is ?

Yes, Stuart.

The Jerusalem Longitudinal Cohort Study (1990-2010) obviously recorded a lot more data than just what shows in individual studies that are based on it's collected data. Here's another, just as an example.

The Jerusalem studay and diabetes

Lead author Stessman is common for all these studies. They are looking at different data, in the database. Nothing else.
 

Stuart

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
317
Such_Saturation said:
What I meant is there is always an underlying direction that makes you come up with these things, and Ray Peat admits this (for example it might be his understanding of the properties of water), so when someone claims to be an "independent" thinker and then consistently comes up with pro-PUFA, pro-cold ideas right after a pro-fiber stance, I having observed this in many "independent" thinkers start to question the grasp they have on their train of though. This in no way implies that I think fiber is bad or anything.

Pro pufa ? I've never even suggested that I'm pro pufa. I've always thought the small amounts of pufas even a strict Peatarian gets in whole foods is ideal - for utterly compelling evolutionary reasons. Not sure where you got that idea. And FWIW I've never noticed EnoreeG even hinting that she was 'pro Pufa' either. Admittedly I haven't been around that long, so there may be some dark pro pufa history I'm not aware of.

Pro cold?? I think sticking slavishly to some antiquated average basal temperature data is unwise. 98.2 seems a bit more sensible in the light of current science, particularly when the old numbers are being used as an excuse to diagnose thyroid dysfunction where none may exist.
I think what is fast being realized is that there is at least half a degree (C) variability in optmum basal body temp across the human population with healthy thyroid function anyway.
So I have to admit if that marks me as being 'pro cold' then I'm guilty as charged. :D
And I must confess I'm not really up to speed on the Peatarian attitude to ideal pulse rates. I thought resting pulse rate depends on cardiovascular fitness? It certainly has a big influence on mine. How do you eliminate that from the equation in terms of setting a target?
Pro Fiber? Why, yes I am.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
Stuart said:
Such_Saturation said:
What I meant is there is always an underlying direction that makes you come up with these things, and Ray Peat admits this (for example it might be his understanding of the properties of water), so when someone claims to be an "independent" thinker and then consistently comes up with pro-PUFA, pro-cold ideas right after a pro-fiber stance, I having observed this in many "independent" thinkers start to question the grasp they have on their train of though. This in no way implies that I think fiber is bad or anything.

Pro pufa ? I've never even suggested that I'm pro pufa. I've always thought the small amounts of pufas even a strict Peatarian gets in whole foods is ideal - for utterly compelling evolutionary reasons. Not sure where you got that idea. And FWIW I've never noticed EnoreeG even hinting that she was 'pro Pufa' either. Admittedly I haven't been around that long, so there may be some dark pro pufa history I'm not aware of.

Pro cold?? I think sticking slavishly to some antiquated average basal temperature data is unwise. 98.2 seems a bit more sensible in the light of current science, particularly when the old numbers are being used as an excuse to diagnose thyroid dysfunction where none may exist.
I think what is fast being realized is that there is at least half a degree (C) variability in optmum basal body temp across the human population with healthy thyroid function anyway.
So I have to admit if that marks me as being 'pro cold' then I'm guilty as charged. :D
And I must confess I'm not really up to speed on the Peatarian attitude to ideal pulse rates. I thought resting pulse rate depends on cardiovascular fitness? It certainly has a big influence on mine. How do you eliminate that from the equation in terms of setting a target?

Yes, that is a positive view of PUFA I think. If you try to think in terms of what we COULD be, as why we are what we are right now, you could for example think of metabolism as something that becomes better as temperature increases, and of PUFA as something that is only needed when trying to lower that temperature. These different factors are connected by the underlying structure of matter, and you are thinking about them as such, but you are not aware of it. That is the issue.
 

Stuart

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
317
Such_Saturation said:
Yes, that is a positive view of PUFA I think. If you try to think in terms of what we COULD be, as why we are what we are right now, you could for example think of metabolism as something that becomes better as temperature increases, and of PUFA as something that is only needed when trying to lower that temperature. These different factors are connected by the underlying structure of matter, and you are thinking about them as such, but you are not aware of it. That is the issue.

Sorry Such_ , you've lost me. You're saying that seeing the tiny pufa in our evolutionary diet as being just right makes me 'pro pufa' ? Even though I think that any more is unhealthy.
You're an interesting fellow!
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
Stuart said:
Such_Saturation said:
Yes, that is a positive view of PUFA I think. If you try to think in terms of what we COULD be, as why we are what we are right now, you could for example think of metabolism as something that becomes better as temperature increases, and of PUFA as something that is only needed when trying to lower that temperature. These different factors are connected by the underlying structure of matter, and you are thinking about them as such, but you are not aware of it. That is the issue.

Sorry Such_ , you've lost me. You're saying that seeing the tiny pufa in our evolutionary diet as being just right makes me 'pro pufa' ? Even though I think that any more is unhealthy.
You're an interesting fellow!

Well we aren't perfect, are we? We are exploring how to improve ourselves, rather than become Ice Age men.
 

Brian

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
505
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.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
Brian said:
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.

Exactly.

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

Stuart

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
317
Brian said:
I would expect that my particular paleo Northern ancestors had lower temperature, pulse, and lifespan than I am capable of now.
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.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
Stuart said:
Now Such_ you're the epitome of a Peat purist. I admire that.

Peat purist? :lol:

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.

Stuart said:
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
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom