Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7078
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
Yes, human body temperature getting lower.
Not some crazy theory but based on data and with a plausible explanation.
Read all about it here: https://elifesciences.org/articles/49555
Not some crazy theory but based on data and with a plausible explanation.
Read all about it here: https://elifesciences.org/articles/49555
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
I'm a bit confused about the explanations given for this drop in temperature.
In order to rule out that the drop was due to differences in measuring methods over the years, they compared the contemporaneous measurements against each other,and showed that the drop correlated with the birth year. So there is a drop of 0.03 degrees C per birth decade, rather than just per decade.
They claim that the drop in temperature is due to a reduced metabolic rate, and speculate that it is most likely caused by a reduced amount of inflammation in the population as a whole, but also due to better temperature control in buildings.
If the temperature is correlated to birth year, it would suggest that the body temperature (or metabolic rate) is set at birth, so I don't see how the explanations apply. Maybe the temperature/metabolic rate settles when you're young, and that the amount of inflammation affects that. Not so sure the ambient temperature in your youth would have a permanent effect on body temperature later in life though.
P.S. "with a mean body temperature 1.6% lower" Oh dear. That makes me doubt everything.
In order to rule out that the drop was due to differences in measuring methods over the years, they compared the contemporaneous measurements against each other,and showed that the drop correlated with the birth year. So there is a drop of 0.03 degrees C per birth decade, rather than just per decade.
They claim that the drop in temperature is due to a reduced metabolic rate, and speculate that it is most likely caused by a reduced amount of inflammation in the population as a whole, but also due to better temperature control in buildings.
If the temperature is correlated to birth year, it would suggest that the body temperature (or metabolic rate) is set at birth, so I don't see how the explanations apply. Maybe the temperature/metabolic rate settles when you're young, and that the amount of inflammation affects that. Not so sure the ambient temperature in your youth would have a permanent effect on body temperature later in life though.
P.S. "with a mean body temperature 1.6% lower" Oh dear. That makes me doubt everything.
Jaap's Page: https://www.jaapsch.net/
- GeenDienst
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:10 am
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
No, birth year could be a surrogate for later things going on that affected temperature, like chronic infections or whatever. These would change over time.
And there''s nothing wrong with that "1.6% lower" statement.
Just tell 'em I'm broke and don't come round here no more.
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
It would correspond to a drop in body temperature of about 5°C.GeenDienst wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:50 amNo, birth year could be a surrogate for later things going on that affected temperature, like chronic infections or whatever. These would change over time.
And there''s nothing wrong with that "1.6% lower" statement.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
- GeenDienst
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:10 am
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
shpalman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:22 pmIt would correspond to a drop in body temperature of about 5°C.GeenDienst wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:50 amNo, birth year could be a surrogate for later things going on that affected temperature, like chronic infections or whatever. These would change over time.
And there''s nothing wrong with that "1.6% lower" statement.
That's pretty much 1.6% of 37.6 C.We found that men born in the early 19th century had temperatures 0.59°C higher than men today
Just tell 'em I'm broke and don't come round here no more.
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
But it's only about 1.1% of 99.7°F.GeenDienst wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:50 pmshpalman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:22 pmIt would correspond to a drop in body temperature of about 5°C.GeenDienst wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:50 am
No, birth year could be a surrogate for later things going on that affected temperature, like chronic infections or whatever. These would change over time.
And there''s nothing wrong with that "1.6% lower" statement.That's pretty much 1.6% of 37.6 C.We found that men born in the early 19th century had temperatures 0.59°C higher than men today
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
- GeenDienst
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:10 am
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
Go for absolute and you'll get an even bigger wrong number.
Just tell 'em I'm broke and don't come round here no more.
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
Like I said, a temperature "1.6% lower" than a usual body temperature would correspond to a drop of about 5°C only the only common temperature scale in which the zero is not an arbitrary definition.GeenDienst wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:09 pmGo for absolute and you'll get an even bigger wrong number.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
- GeenDienst
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:10 am
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
Well done on ignoring the context and content of the entire paper.
Just tell 'em I'm broke and don't come round here no more.
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
There was a More Or Less podcast last year about body temperature and whether Wunderlich's 37°C was accurate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3cswk3g
Still available if you have 9 minutes to spare. If not just listen to the last 2-3 minutes when they talk about whether it's an accurate number or not. They don't consider whether humans have changed. They do explain that his thermometers were calibrated to take readings from patients armpits so read a few degrees hotter than modern thermometers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3cswk3g
Still available if you have 9 minutes to spare. If not just listen to the last 2-3 minutes when they talk about whether it's an accurate number or not. They don't consider whether humans have changed. They do explain that his thermometers were calibrated to take readings from patients armpits so read a few degrees hotter than modern thermometers.
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
The data in Fig. 1A start at age 30.jaap wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:45 amI'm a bit confused about the explanations given for this drop in temperature.
In order to rule out that the drop was due to differences in measuring methods over the years, they compared the contemporaneous measurements against each other,and showed that the drop correlated with the birth year. So there is a drop of 0.03 degrees C per birth decade, rather than just per decade.
They claim that the drop in temperature is due to a reduced metabolic rate, and speculate that it is most likely caused by a reduced amount of inflammation in the population as a whole, but also due to better temperature control in buildings.
If the temperature is correlated to birth year, it would suggest that the body temperature (or metabolic rate) is set at birth, so I don't see how the explanations apply. Maybe the temperature/metabolic rate settles when you're young, and that the amount of inflammation affects that. Not so sure the ambient temperature in your youth would have a permanent effect on body temperature later in life though.
I think the point is that for a particular person born in a certain year, their body temperature slowly decreases with age. However, for a person born later than this first person, their body temperature starts a bit lower (and then decreases with age).
There's a sentence in the introduction "Human body temperature is a crude surrogate for basal metabolic rate which, in turn, has been linked to both longevity (higher metabolic rate, shorter life span) and body size (lower metabolism, greater body mass)" which seems to be contradicted in the outro "studies examining whether metabolism is related to body surface area or body weight (Du Bois, 1936; Kleiber, 1972), ultimately, converged on weight-dependent models (Mifflin et al., 1990; Schofield, 1985; Nelson et al., 1992). Since US residents have increased in mass since the mid-19th century, we should have correspondingly expected increased body temperature."
I think the outro is correct and the idea of accumulating a greater body mass because of a "slow metabolism" as implied by the sentence in the intro is one of those common misconceptions.
(Incidentally, the Stefan–Boltzmann law says that the power radiated from a black body is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature; assuming a spherical human in a vacuum the power difference from the temperature change of 0.59°C would be of the order of 1%. I think you'd get a much smaller difference once you also count the warmth from the surroundings radiating power back into the human, mostly from the inside of your clothes rather than the ambient temperature.)
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
Thank you for this! When I read the paper it reminded me of something I heard about body temperature being "different" now to when it was first determined and I couldn't for the life of me remember where. It was More or Less.Martin Y wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:35 pmThere was a More Or Less podcast last year about body temperature and whether Wunderlich's 37°C was accurate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3cswk3g
Still available if you have 9 minutes to spare. If not just listen to the last 2-3 minutes when they talk about whether it's an accurate number or not. They don't consider whether humans have changed. They do explain that his thermometers were calibrated to take readings from patients armpits so read a few degrees hotter than modern thermometers.
it's okay to say "I don't know"
- GeenDienst
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:10 am
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
There's no contradiction there. BMR increases with body weight. If BMR is a crude surrogate for temperature, then in the absence of other things happening, it is reasonable to speculate that increasing size in the population would predict increasing BMR, which in turn would predict increasing temperature. Even if someone was overweight in part due to a low BMR, the same relationship would be expected apply if they got heavier.shpalman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 2:20 pmThere's a sentence in the introduction "Human body temperature is a crude surrogate for basal metabolic rate which, in turn, has been linked to both longevity (higher metabolic rate, shorter life span) and body size (lower metabolism, greater body mass)" which seems to be contradicted in the outro "studies examining whether metabolism is related to body surface area or body weight (Du Bois, 1936; Kleiber, 1972), ultimately, converged on weight-dependent models (Mifflin et al., 1990; Schofield, 1985; Nelson et al., 1992). Since US residents have increased in mass since the mid-19th century, we should have correspondingly expected increased body temperature."
The following sentence, which you didn't quote, is important in the context of their argument:
I would argue with "independent of", because it is likely that multiple things are happening. Something like "not driven by" might be closer to gist of what they are really saying, as the overall direction of the change in temperature they describe is opposite to that expected (indirectly) from contemporaneous changes in adiposity.Thus, we interpret our finding of a decrease in body temperature as indicative of a decrease in metabolic rate independent of changes in anthropometrics.
Just tell 'em I'm broke and don't come round here no more.
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
It's every bit as wrong as a tabloid story asserting that 30 degrees Celcius is twice as hot as 15 degrees Celcius.GeenDienst wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:50 am
And there''s nothing wrong with that "1.6% lower" statement.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.
Fintan O'Toole
Fintan O'Toole
- GeenDienst
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:10 am
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
These authors haven't done that. They talk about mean body temperature, using the standard SI unit for temperature, and they found it Their measurement was 1.6% lower over time. This is perfectly correct.JQH wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:26 pmIt's every bit as wrong as a tabloid story asserting that 30 degrees Celcius is twice as hot as 15 degrees Celcius.GeenDienst wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:50 am
And there''s nothing wrong with that "1.6% lower" statement.
Just tell 'em I'm broke and don't come round here no more.
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
The °C isn't the SI unit for temperature. Its definition of zero is physiologically meaningless. Ok, it would have been meaningless to give the percentage of absolute temperature difference too, but at least it wouldn't have been physically incorrect.GeenDienst wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 5:01 pmThese authors haven't done that. They talk about mean body temperature, using the standard SI unit for temperature, and they found it Their measurement was 1.6% lower over time. This is perfectly correct.JQH wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:26 pmIt's every bit as wrong as a tabloid story asserting that 30 degrees Celcius is twice as hot as 15 degrees Celcius.GeenDienst wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:50 am
And there''s nothing wrong with that "1.6% lower" statement.
(It would have been more meaningful to compare the temperature difference to the normal range of human body temperature variations, or something like that.)
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
Yes that's why I didn't understand why they wrote "lower metabolism, greater body mass" in the introduction. All things being equal, if you consume a certain number of calories and require less energy to maintain your body temperature then you will gain weight, but things aren't equal because that gained weight needs more metabolism to support it.GeenDienst wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 2:50 pmThere's no contradiction there. BMR increases with body weight...shpalman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 2:20 pmThere's a sentence in the introduction "Human body temperature is a crude surrogate for basal metabolic rate which, in turn, has been linked to both longevity (higher metabolic rate, shorter life span) and body size (lower metabolism, greater body mass)" which seems to be contradicted in the outro "studies examining whether metabolism is related to body surface area or body weight (Du Bois, 1936; Kleiber, 1972), ultimately, converged on weight-dependent models (Mifflin et al., 1990; Schofield, 1985; Nelson et al., 1992). Since US residents have increased in mass since the mid-19th century, we should have correspondingly expected increased body temperature."
I think they are suggesting that since these effects are opposite then the changes in adiposity slightly counteract the change in temperature which would otherwise be even stronger.GeenDienst wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 2:50 pmIf BMR is a crude surrogate for temperature, then in the absence of other things happening, it is reasonable to speculate that increasing size in the population would predict increasing BMR, which in turn would predict increasing temperature. Even if someone was overweight in part due to a low BMR, the same relationship would be expected apply if they got heavier.
The following sentence, which you didn't quote, is important in the context of their argument:
I would argue with "independent of", because it is likely that multiple things are happening. Something like "not driven by" might be closer to gist of what they are really saying, as the overall direction of the change in temperature they describe is opposite to that expected (indirectly) from contemporaneous changes in adiposity.Thus, we interpret our finding of a decrease in body temperature as indicative of a decrease in metabolic rate independent of changes in anthropometrics.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7078
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
All the authors work at Stanford and as far as I can tell have PhDs.
One is a Senior Research Scientist
One is a Professor of Medicine (Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine) and Professor of Health Research and Policy
One is a Professor of Mathematical Sciences and Professor of Statistics
I doubt that they’d make basic errors that we’d usually associate with a tabloid journalist.
One is a Senior Research Scientist
One is a Professor of Medicine (Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine) and Professor of Health Research and Policy
One is a Professor of Mathematical Sciences and Professor of Statistics
I doubt that they’d make basic errors that we’d usually associate with a tabloid journalist.
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
And yet they thought it was meaningful to say that 0.6°C was 1.6% of 37°C.
If the air temperature dropped from 0.0°C to -0.6°C, what percentage change would that be?
If the air temperature dropped from 0.0°C to -0.6°C, what percentage change would that be?
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
- GeenDienst
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:10 am
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
In the introduction they are just pointing out why we they think we should think changes in BMR are important.
Again, the whole paragraph provides better context.
Human body temperature is a crude surrogate for basal metabolic rate which, in turn, has been linked to both longevity (higher metabolic rate, shorter life span) and body size (lower metabolism, greater body mass). [so it's important, like, yeah?] We speculated...
That would flow better.
Again, the whole paragraph provides better context.
It's not very well written. There's a *clunk* as they go into the last sentence. If t'were me I'd have put some version of the first sentence in at the 3rd sentence, something likeThe question of whether mean body temperature is changing over time is not merely a matter of idle curiosity. Human body temperature is a crude surrogate for basal metabolic rate which, in turn, has been linked to both longevity (higher metabolic rate, shorter life span) and body size (lower metabolism, greater body mass). We speculated that the differences observed in temperature between the 19th century and today are real and that the change over time provides important physiologic clues to alterations in human health and longevity since the Industrial Revolution.
Human body temperature is a crude surrogate for basal metabolic rate which, in turn, has been linked to both longevity (higher metabolic rate, shorter life span) and body size (lower metabolism, greater body mass). [so it's important, like, yeah?] We speculated...
That would flow better.
Just tell 'em I'm broke and don't come round here no more.
- GeenDienst
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:10 am
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
You have a gift for completely ignoring context.
Just tell 'em I'm broke and don't come round here no more.
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
If you go to https://elifesciences.org/articles/49555 and click on "Author Response" you can actually read some of the peer review comments as quote by the authors in their response.GeenDienst wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 5:44 pmIn the introduction they are just pointing out why we they think we should think changes in BMR are important.
Again, the whole paragraph provides better context.
It's not very well written. There's a *clunk* as they go into the last sentence. If t'were me I'd have put some version of the first sentence in at the 3rd sentence, something likeThe question of whether mean body temperature is changing over time is not merely a matter of idle curiosity. Human body temperature is a crude surrogate for basal metabolic rate which, in turn, has been linked to both longevity (higher metabolic rate, shorter life span) and body size (lower metabolism, greater body mass). We speculated that the differences observed in temperature between the 19th century and today are real and that the change over time provides important physiologic clues to alterations in human health and longevity since the Industrial Revolution.
Human body temperature is a crude surrogate for basal metabolic rate which, in turn, has been linked to both longevity (higher metabolic rate, shorter life span) and body size (lower metabolism, greater body mass). [so it's important, like, yeah?] We speculated...
That would flow better.
The authors don't actually seem to respond to that.anonymous peer wrote:Given that body temperature is defined as a biomarker for metabolic rate, discussion regarding body habitus in different parts of the manuscript are a bit difficult to reconcile: 1) lower metabolism is associated with greater body mass (Introduction, last paragraph); 2) increased body mass is associated with increased body temperature (Discussion, second paragraph).
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
"Our investigation indicates that humans in high-income countries have changed physiologically over the last 200 birth years with a mean body temperature 1.6% lower than in the pre-industrial era."
It would have been fine if they would have just written 0.6°C instead of 1.6%. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the rest of the paper, it's just a silly mistake.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
This is the Nerd Lab; the entire point of this area is to be nerdy and nothing says nerd like identifying errors like this.
"My interest is in the future, because I'm going to spend the rest of my life there"
Re: Decreasing human body temperature in the United States
There's no possible context in which that statement is meaningful and correct.