Non-specific medical question

[bluewind95]

Hello!

I'm not going to ask for specific advice here. But I am curious about something and I believe some Playgrounders have some medical knowledge. My google-fu is weak for this. I wonder, therefore I ask.

I know that a fever is part of the immune response of the body. I suppose that, up to a point, it can almost be considered a healthy response. Before, I used to get healthy fevers when I got sick enough. Lately, though... I don't seem to get a fever, no matter how sick I've gotten. My temperature rises less than a degree, and that's it (this heightened temperature can also be found when I'm not sick, and only at night, but that's not very relevant, I think). But really... what I wonder is this: what are some things that may cause an otherwise-healthy body to develop no fever in illnesses that before would have had that same body in bed with a pretty high fever?

Thank you in advance, Playground.

[KuReshtin]

Yes, usually, a fever is a healthy response to an ilness.
A lot of the causes for illness are very dependent on having the correct environment to work, and that means that they need the correct temperature around to be able to spread.
A fever is the body's way of taking the beneficial environment away from the causes of the illness and killing them.*
Of course, a really elevated fever isn't good either since it can start being detrimental to the rest of your body, but that's when it's a REALLY elevated fever.

If you're worried about not getting a fever when you get ill, have a talk with your GP, don't ask random people online.

*This is what I've been told, so it may not be correct. Seriously, go see a doctor for medical advice!

[thubby]

have you ever checked your temperature when you're not sick? a fever is a relative thing, so if your standing body temp is lower a fever is going to be a lower temperature.

[Solaris]

thubby's right. My standard body temp is somewhere between 96 and 97.5 degrees - so if I'm reading 'normal' I'm actually cruising a +2 fever.

That reminds me of a question I'd thunked of. Given an unusual average body temp, would that change the temperatures at which one dies? For example, 84-degree body core is the standard cold kill-temp (and I forget the standard hot kill-temp)... at least, according to the Army's medical teachers. Would someone who regulates an unusual temperature have the kill-temp shifted similarly, or would the metabolic processes not be that different so as to alter their min/max functional levels?

[bluewind95]

Yeah, I know my body temperature and I know it's not way lower than average. I also know that my "fevers" are that core temperature... not increasing even one degree. Which I'm pretty sure isn't quite the norm.

Anyways, as for asking random people online... it's not really something I consider as requiring any action on my part. I just wonder why it may be. I'm an extremely curious, but lacking knowledge in this area, I don't even know where to begin searching. This is merely informative.

As for asking a GP... I don't have one, so that's kind of out of the question.

[golentan]

thubby's right. My standard body temp is somewhere between 96 and 97.5 degrees - so if I'm reading 'normal' I'm actually cruising a +2 fever.

That reminds me of a question I'd thunked of. Given an unusual average body temp, would that change the temperatures at which one dies? For example, 84-degree body core is the standard cold kill-temp (and I forget the standard hot kill-temp)... at least, according to the Army's medical teachers. Would someone who regulates an unusual temperature have the kill-temp shifted similarly, or would the metabolic processes not be that different so as to alter their min/max functional levels?

Well, the upper limit doesn't shift at all, because it's the temperature at which proteins denature. I believe that different metabolic patterns do have a different cold kill-temperature, as I know that was one of the interesting studies involving environment adapted groups (arctic peoples have lower core and lower core kill averages and limits). But I'm not sure, it's been years since I read that, and don't quote me on it.

Also, to answer the OP another explanation is that your immune response varies over time. Fever is basically an allergic reaction to your own immunodefense microbes, which has the benefit of making life difficult for bacteria and viruses. If you have a lighter immune response or allergic reaction over time (for whatever reason) you are less likely to develop a high fever.

[bluewind95]

That is... very informative. And interesting. Many thanks! :smallbiggrin:

[Syka]

The closest I've come to a fever since I can remember was three months ago when my body temperature was slightly above normal (around high 97's to mid 98's as opposed to my normal 96-97 range), and that's when I was hardcore, in bed for three days sick. I haven't had an honest to God fever since I can remember.

But then, my immune system isn't a poster child as I used to be ill all the time. I also work at a pharmacy and have been sick exactly once since I began (caught it from my boyfriend), though. So maybe my immune system is better?

All I know is when I was a kid I used to run fevers when I was sick and I just...don't now. The same thing happened with vomiting. It's just not something my body does. The last time was due to a medicinal interaction 7 years ago.

But I'm still alive and kicking and healthy. :) You're probably fine.

[Serpentine]

The explanation for fever that I was given in... Comparative Physiology, I think: Many bacteria (and viruses?) die at a temperature a little bit below the temperature at which important proteins... denaturise, was that the word? Stop working, anyway. The trick for the body is getting its internal temperature high enough to help take out the pathogens while staying low enough to not kill itself. Animals/individuals who don't have fevers are more susceptible to illness, and too strong a fever can kill.

Regarding the actual question, ionno.

[CoffeeIncluded]

The last time I had a fever was in May. Knocked out in bed with a 104 temperature for almost 3 days.

I had swine flu. Or rather, I had the dire half-dragon wild boar version of it.

[golentan]

The explanation for fever that I was given in... Comparative Physiology, I think: Many bacteria (and viruses?) die at a temperature a little bit below the temperature at which important proteins... denaturise, was that the word? Stop working, anyway. The trick for the body is getting its internal temperature high enough to help take out the pathogens while staying low enough to not kill itself. Animals/individuals who don't have fevers are more susceptible to illness, and too strong a fever can kill.

Regarding the actual question, ionno.

Denature. To lose intrinsic form or quality. Polypeptide bonds don't get along with temperatures higher than about 105 degrees.

But yeah. Most cells, like most engines, have an optimal functional temperature. I was given to understand that a fever sometimes exceeds survivable temperature itself, but more often simply exceeded their optimal temperature (while T cells and Antibodies and Phages have an optimal a couple degrees higher than human average) making them easier pickings.

My body has a simpler solution to illness: Expel! Expel! Expel!

I can eat almost literally anything, because I know that my body will purge within minutes if it's too far gone. Also found out my stomach and salival pH is lower than normal, to the point where it's hard for things that normally gain a foothold there to survive long enough to make it into the bloodstream.

I'll have such terrible ulcers in ten years though...:smalleek:

[DarkMaster]

Well fever is part of the immune response to the strange body (viruses, bacteria, etc.). The response is specific to the strange object. For example there are bacteria that produce really high fever and there are others that doesn't (don't?) produce any. So fever depends on the microorganism.

Sorry if this is poorly written but I'm not really good with english grammar.

[Lissou]

Given an unusual average body temp, would that change the temperatures at which one dies? For example, 84-degree body core is the standard cold kill-temp (and I forget the standard hot kill-temp)... at least, according to the Army's medical teachers. Would someone who regulates an unusual temperature have the kill-temp shifted similarly, or would the metabolic processes not be that different so as to alter their min/max functional levels?

I don't know about minimal temperatures, but I know I have been told that if your temperature is over 40°C (104F), you die, and yet I've had a body temperature of 42°C (107.6°F) and I'm still alive (to be fair, I was hallucinating so I probably wasn't in a great shape either. But I survived it fine).

This being said, my normal temperature is, well, normal. So that didn't have that much to do with your question, but is still related in that I think the "maximum" and "minimum" temperatures are probably guidelines and it might be possible (if rare) survive with a lower or higher temperature (and to die before you reach the low or high one that they set).

[golentan]

I don't know about minimal temperatures, but I know I have been told that if your temperature is over 40°C (104F), you die, and yet I've had a body temperature of 42°C (107.6°F) and I'm still alive (to be fair, I was hallucinating so I probably wasn't in a great shape either. But I survived it fine).

This being said, my normal temperature is, well, normal. So that didn't have that much to do with your question, but is still related in that I think the "maximum" and "minimum" temperatures are probably guidelines and it might be possible (if rare) survive with a lower or higher temperature (and to die before you reach the low or high one that they set).

Well, 104 is a massive risk sign. 105, major loss of function to some organs begins, but is entirely reversible. At 106, they begin to worry about brain damage. At 107, you are in a lethal situation and slowly begin to cook yourself. The process isn't immediate, but can lead to irreversible brain, liver, and heart damage, muscular degeneration, and build up of of toxic substances in the blood.

Think of it like cooking a turkey. Once you've got the core temperature (the temperature of the organs and other vital material) over the cooking temperature, it takes several hours for the full effect to happen. That doesn't mean it won't happen before the end of the day. You're very lucky to be alive. I'd hazard a guess your core was around a degree lower (fever is highest in and around the lymph nodes), the thermometer may have been off, and the fever was not sustained for more than a couple hours. In the future, when you break 104 immediately call a doctor. When you break 105, dump yourself in a bathtub full of icewater until the doctor can come to you, after calling the doctor and confirming that.

Please don't ask why I know so much about how things kill people.

[Lissou]

You're very lucky to be alive. I'd hazard a guess your core was around a degree lower (fever is highest in and around the lymph nodes), the thermometer may have been off, and the fever was not sustained for more than a couple hours. In the future, when you break 104 immediately call a doctor. When you break 105, dump yourself in a bathtub full of icewater until the doctor can come to you, after calling the doctor and confirming that.

I was a kid and both my parents are doctors, so I know that a) the temperature measurement was right (so the thermometer wasn't off. It's quite possible my core was lower though) and b) I was taken care of better than most people would (which is probably the most part of why I'm still alive).

I wouldn't just stay home with such a fever and think I can just shrug it off. I was merely pointing out that it's not as easy as "you reach such number, bam, you die". And it is quite possible that different people might last longer than others.

Incidentally, I had the flu. I've been very good about getting vaccinated since then.

[Solaris]

Well, the upper limit doesn't shift at all, because it's the temperature at which proteins denature. I believe that different metabolic patterns do have a different cold kill-temperature, as I know that was one of the interesting studies involving environment adapted groups (arctic peoples have lower core and lower core kill averages and limits). But I'm not sure, it's been years since I read that, and don't quote me on it.

Hmm. Good to know, thanks.
... Somehow, I think my chain of command won't take my experimenting to figure out my own kill-temp too kindly. They frown on us getting cold-weather injuries, even if it is for science. I do have reason to believe it shifts over time and with acclimation, as I react to cold much more poorly than I did prior to deployment.

[golentan]

Hmm. Good to know, thanks.
... Somehow, I think my chain of command won't take my experimenting to figure out my own kill-temp too kindly. They frown on us getting cold-weather injuries, even if it is for science. I do have reason to believe it shifts over time and with acclimation, as I react to cold much more poorly than I did prior to deployment.

Yeah, well. A nervous response isn't necessarily indicative of a physiological one (just because you're uncomfortable doesn't mean you're in trouble). I was thinking more hereditary traits with that.

Chains of commands can really tie you down that way. I'd say if you really want to find out, volunteer for a controlled experiment with the base physician. But rule 1 is still never volunteer, right?

[Solaris]

Yeah, well. A nervous response isn't necessarily indicative of a physiological one (just because you're uncomfortable doesn't mean you're in trouble). I was thinking more hereditary traits with that.

Chains of commands can really tie you down that way. I'd say if you really want to find out, volunteer for a controlled experiment with the base physician. But rule 1 is still never volunteer, right?

True that. I'm a lot more uncomfortable at 40 than I am at -40. At some point, my body says "You know what? Forget I said anything."

... Knowing our base, that would end fatally. God bless the Army docs up here. They know battlefield medicine... and that's about it.
Heheh. You'd think enlisting in the first place woulda taught me that volunteering can only end badly.

[bluewind95]

I like this topic. Such, such interesting replies. I didn't know much of that.

Yeah, I became rather interested in this particular thing, about why the body produces a fever, how much of it, and why the response can change over time, and what it all means and a variety of other things after observing that in me.

I got sick recently (throat, then a cold/flu/something, now I find it hard to breathe and have a horrendous cough), and well, in the past, I would have had quite the fever. But now? Nada. Less than 99 degrees (37.2 for those with a nice, sensible system). I got curious again and tried my google-fu. And it is weak. So I found nothing and recalled the Playground is practically composed of intelligent people, and I think this is an interesting topic either way, so...

About the fever response, I only knew the basics, which is that it's one of the responses the body has to illness, and that you should worry when it goes above 104.

And Lissou... good to know you were cared for well enough to recover from that. That does sound nasty. :smalleek: