Sweating virus's out... old wives tale or not?

Is there any truth to sweating a virus out of your system?

No. None. The myth long predates any understanding of viral infection, and there’s no way it could have any meaningful effect.

Well, while it doesn’t actually expel the sickness from your system, the body itself does try to get rid of sickness with a raised body temperature otherwise known as a fever. There’s a small grain of truth in it. If you do decide to “sweat” the sickness away, make certain you have LOTS of fluids too! I’d also make certain not to raise the temperature for too long, or too high. Fever is part of the body’s way of killing off sickness though.

There’s another addage that’s got some truth in it. “Feed a cold, starve a fever”. (Do I have the order of that correct?) There are others that are being shown to have have unusual wisdom. Like honey on wounds, the use of leeches etc. I’m sure more qualified people will be along to explain why there is some truth in this. :slight_smile:

I’m no expert, but putting honey on a wound would work due to the hygroscopic properties of honey. The sugars suck the water right out of the bacteria, effectively killing them and creating a barrier against other bacteria entering the wound. This is also the reason honey doesn’t go bad.

Not to mention IIRC that honey (unpasturized that is) has anti-microbial properties. It, among other things used to be used to dress wounds in ancient days. Hospitals are using leeches on wounds now, I believe.

Viruses tend to have a fairly narrow temperature range that they can live in (to whatever degree they can be said to be alive), so a raised body temperature (within limits) is a good thing. A low to moderate fever raises your temperature to hopefully above where the virus can survive/reproduce but allows you to live, although a very high fever is destructive and should always be treated ASAP. It wouldn’t be the sweating per se that would be killing the viruses, it’d be the temperature - sweating is just part of the fairly efficient systems you’ve got to keep your temperature where your body wants it to be. Because of these mechanisms, it’s hard to raise your own temperature that much without taking very extreme action, so I’m not sure how effective getting yourself really hot would be. But if you’ve got a low-grade fever and no other serious symptoms, it’s probably a good idea not to take something just to lower it, since it’s fighting the virus without hurting you.

No. It’s feed a cold, feed a fever. Since when is prescribing poor nutrition going to be helpful for the body to fight off an invading germ?

Now, if it’s food poisoning and you’re vomiting constantly, then maybe food at that point ain’t such a good idea. (Although, if the vomiting is occurring for more than half a day, then maybe it’s time to see a doctor to stop the vomiting or to find an IV solution (pun not intended) to hydration and nutrition.)

Peace.

Seems to me I’d been told that in some cases it wasn’t such a good thing to “feed a fever”. Maybe because vomiting would ensue? Of course if the person feels like eating, they should, whether they are ill with a “fever” or a “cold”. Mainly, I think the addage refers to the idea that a person with a cold should be “encouraged” to eat despite the fact that nothing smells/tastes as it should due to the stuffy nose. :wink:

No, it’s feed a cold and starve a fever. The Master Speaks!

I wasn’t trying to correct the attribution of the quote, I was correcting the content. Whether it’s one way or the other, it’s wrong. Cecil’s article confirms it’s wrong. You feed both.

Peace.

I say again Moriah not always.
At least, according to some schools of thought.

As I said, if they feel like eating, fine, but don’t be suprised if they don’t, and don’t be too worried if it doesn’t go on for long. Liquids are more important in helping a feverish person. A person with a cold needs to be “encouraged” to eat because they might not want to due to lessened/altered taste and smell.