Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j94aqbi wrote

Reply to comment by fack_yuo in Why are fevers cyclical? by Key-Marionberry-9854

[removed]

0

light24bulbs t1_j94yae8 wrote

Mmm..no, it's probably not a caloric constraint. Being hot is pretty damaging to the host as well.

Maybe you should source the calory thing?

10

Mercerskye t1_j956q5z wrote

Starving to death is arguably more damaging than a fever, with the odd occurrence of infections that prompt a fever high enough to be lethal.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2015/179791/

Closest link I can find talking about calorie restriction vs inflammatory responses.

It makes a lot of sense though. We practically have nothing left to adapt to, at least not on a major level. Our last big changes were at a point where food wasn't a daily guarantee, but getting some kind of injury or infection was pretty likely.

Our ancestors that could fight off an infection long enough to get to the next meal, or at least survive long enough to reproduce are, imho, the better candidates for passing genes compared to those that just kept trying to "burn the infection out."

1000yrs ago, just hanging around spending all your fuel for what amounts to no forward momentum in the survival game was probably a fast ticket out of the gene pool.

0

Shadowfalx t1_j961xa3 wrote

This is the worst kind of amateur take.

Humans have generally had a few days to weeks of fat reserve plus some extra weeks with muscle. The calorie cost of raising your temp 4°F is low. Plus, we have, since becoming human and probably long before, lived in groups (often familial) that help each other.

4