Can Chilly Feet Trigger Cold Symptoms? A 2005 Study Revisits an Old Wive's Tale

Table of Contents

• Key Points
• Background: Why this old question still matters
• Study methods: How the "cold feet" theory was tested
• Key findings: What the data showed
• Clinical implications: What this means for patients
• Limitations: What the study could not prove
• Recommendations: Practical takeaways
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Source information

Key Points

• In a 2005 study of 180 healthy volunteers, 14.4% of those with chilled feet reported a cold within 4–5 days, versus 5.6% of controls.
• Chilling feet did not cause immediate symptoms; the increase in self-reported colds and symptom scores was delayed.
• The study did not test for viruses, so it cannot prove chilling caused infection; symptoms were self-reported.
• Participants who developed a cold after chilling reported more colds per year, suggesting a possible 'common cold constitution'.
• The study was a pilot in mostly young university students during winter, so results may not apply to everyone.

Background: Why this old question still matters

The common cold is a mild, self-limiting illness that usually affects only the upper respiratory tract. It is not diagnosed by a doctor in most cases; rather, people diagnose themselves based on a familiar set of symptoms: nasal stuffiness, sneezing, throat irritation, and sometimes a mild fever.

For centuries, folklore has linked catching a cold to being chilled — especially through wet clothes, wet hair, or cold feet. This idea appears throughout clinical writings from the last 300 years. Yet when scientists deliberately exposed volunteers to cold viruses and cold environments in earlier laboratory studies, they failed to show that cold exposure increased susceptibility to infection. Because of these negative results, modern virology textbooks often dismissed the idea as "erroneous folklore."

However, the belief is so widespread and so long-standing that researchers decided to look more carefully. An important clue came from a 1919 study by Mudd and Grant, who showed that cooling the body surface causes a reflex narrowing (vasoconstriction) of blood vessels in the nose and a drop in the temperature of the nasal lining. They speculated this could reduce the airways' defense against infection. Later, Sir Christopher Andrewes suggested that cold exposure might trigger a cold only in people already carrying a latent (hidden) cold virus.

In 2002, researcher Ron Eccles built on these ideas. He proposed that when common cold viruses are circulating in the community, some infected people have sub-clinical infections — meaning they carry the virus but have no symptoms. Acute cooling of the body surface, such as chilly feet, could trigger a reflex in the nose and upper airways that inhibits respiratory defenses. That inhibition could turn a symptom-free infection into a full-blown clinical cold. The current study was designed to test this hypothesis in healthy, symptom-free volunteers during winter, when cold viruses naturally circulate.

Study methods: How the "cold feet" theory was tested

Participants

The researchers recruited 180 healthy adult volunteers from the student population at Cardiff University. All procedures took place at the Common Cold Centre, Cardiff, in a room kept at 18–25°C. Participants were not allowed to smoke or eat during the study sessions.

Volunteers were excluded if they had an acute upper respiratory tract infection in the previous two weeks, or if they had a history of seasonal or perennial rhinitis (frequent allergies causing a runny or blocked nose). Of 188 people assessed, 8 were excluded before randomization (4 did not meet the inclusion criteria and 4 refused). The remaining 180 were split evenly into two groups of 90.

Chill versus control procedures

Each participant was randomly assigned to one of two procedures, using a computer-generated randomization list. Randomization was "stratified": participants who reported 0–3 colds in the previous year were assigned to their group from the beginning of the randomization list, while those with 4 or more colds were assigned from the end. This helped balance the two groups based on cold history.

• Chill group: Participants removed their shoes and socks and placed their feet in a bowl containing 9–10 liters of water at 10°C for 20 minutes. The water temperature was monitored continuously, and ice was added if needed to maintain 10°C.
• Control group: Participants kept their shoes and socks on and placed their feet in an empty bowl for 20 minutes.

Warm water was deliberately not used as a control, because warm water could itself alter nasal blood flow and confuse the results.

Symptom diaries and measurements

Before and immediately after the procedure, participants were asked whether they were suffering from a cold and to score five symptoms on a scale of 0 to 3 (0 = not present, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe):

• Runny nose
• Blocked nose
• Sore throat
• Sneezing
• Cough

For the next 4/5 days, they kept a daily diary. They recorded the same symptom scores and noted whether they believed they were suffering from a cold. Diary checkpoints were: day 1 PM, days 2 and 3 AM/PM, day 4 AM, and then at a second visit on day 4 or 5.

Nasal airflow was also measured as a "Nasal Partitioning Ratio" (NPR) using a spirometer before the procedure and on day 4/5. However, these measurements proved too variable to provide meaningful data, so they are not reported in the paper.

Statistical analysis

This was a pilot study, so no formal power calculation was performed. The researchers predicted that 29 chilled participants and 9 control participants would develop colds, based on estimates of how many sub-clinical infections become clinical. They used standard statistical tests (Mann-Whitney, Chi-squared, Fisher Exact) and considered results significant when the p-value was less than 0.05.

Total symptom scores for days 1 through 4/5 were calculated (maximum possible score = 120). These totals were also analyzed as "dichotomous" data: a total score of 0–8 meant no cold, while 9–120 meant a cold was present. A participant was considered to have experienced a cold if they reported "suffering from a cold" on any diary day after the test procedure.

Key findings: What the data showed

Demographics: The two groups were well matched

Both groups were similar at the start of the study. The control group had a median age of 20 (range 18–43), and the chill group also had a median age of 20 (range 18–39); this difference was not significant (p = 0.598). There were 29 men and 61 women in the control group, compared with 25 men and 65 women in the chill group (p = 0.515). The median number of colds per year was 2.0 in both groups (control range 1–10, chill range 1–8; p = 0.859).

Acute (immediate) effects: No sudden symptoms

The test procedures did not cause any immediate change in symptom scores. In the control group, the average total symptom score went from 0.02 (standard deviation 0.15) before the procedure to 0.13 (SD 0.37) immediately after. In the chill group, it went from 0.07 (SD 0.29) to 0.21 (SD 0.51). The difference between the groups was not significant (p = 0.62). In other words, chilling feet did not instantly produce cold symptoms.

Delayed effects: Colds appeared within days

The story changed over the following days. The average daily symptom scores were higher in the chilled group on every day after the procedure. The mean total symptom score for days 1–4/5 was significantly higher in the chill group at 5.16 (SD 5.63, n = 87) compared with 2.89 (SD 3.39, n = 88) in the control group (p = 0.013).

When total scores were analyzed as "cold present" versus "cold absent," 26 out of 90 chilled participants (28.8%) met the symptom-score threshold for a cold, compared with only 8 out of 90 controls (8.8%). This difference was highly significant (p = 0.001).

The most direct patient-relevant finding was in self-reported colds. During the 4/5 days after the procedure, 13 of 90 chilled participants (14.4%) said they were suffering from a cold, compared with 5 of 90 control participants (5.6%). This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.047).

Sex differences: None found

There was no meaningful difference between men and women in the development of colds. Overall, 9.3% of men and 10.3% of women reported a cold after the procedures (p = 0.828). Within the chilled group specifically, 4 of the 13 who developed colds were male (31%) and 9 were female (69%). This simply reflected the proportions of men (28%) and women (72%) in the chill group, so it was not significant (p = 0.749, Fisher Exact).

Cold history: Frequent cold sufferers may be extra sensitive

There was no baseline difference in cold frequency between the two test groups. However, when both groups were combined, participants who developed a cold after the procedures had a history of significantly more colds per year. The abstract of the study notes this difference was significant at p = 0.007. The researchers reported that those who developed a cold typically had a median of 3 colds per year (range 1–10), while those who did not develop a cold had a median of 2 colds per year (range 2–8).

This finding suggests there may be a subgroup of people with a "common cold constitution" — that is, certain individuals are simply more susceptible to developing cold symptoms each year, and may also be more likely to respond to chilling.

Clinical implications: What this means for patients

This study provides some evidence supporting the old saying that getting chilled — especially chilled feet — may trigger cold symptoms in susceptible people. The mechanism, as proposed by the researchers, is a reflex response: when cold receptors on the skin are activated (such as by cold water on the feet), blood vessels in the nose and upper airways constrict. This constriction may inhibit the local immune defense system, allowing a virus that was already present in a symptom-free, sub-clinical form to multiply and produce symptoms.

Importantly, the study does not claim that cold exposure alone gives you a cold. Instead, the idea is that you may already be carrying a cold virus without knowing it. The chill could "tip the balance" and turn that hidden infection into a visible cold. This would explain why people often say, "I caught a cold because I got chilled" — they may not realize they were already infected before their feet got cold.

For patients, the practical takeaway is this: if you are prone to colds, keeping your feet warm in cold weather might reduce the chance of developing symptoms. This is especially relevant in winter, when cold viruses circulate widely and many people have symptom-free infections.

Limitations: What the study could not prove

This was a pilot study, and it has important limitations that patients should understand.

• No virology testing. The researchers did not test for actual cold viruses, so they cannot prove that participants were truly infected with a respiratory virus, nor that symptoms were caused by infection rather than by the chilling itself.
• Self-reported symptoms. Colds were diagnosed by participants, not by doctors. Someone who believes in the folklore about chills could be biased toward reporting symptoms after having their feet chilled.
• Possible chance finding. The p-value for the main self-reported cold outcome was 0.047, just below the 0.05 cutoff. However, the two other symptom-based analyses were more strongly significant (p = 0.013 and p = 0.001), which makes chance less likely.
• Limited generalizability. Participants were mostly young university students, so results may not apply equally to older adults or children.
• Seasonal timing. The study was conducted from October 2003 to March 2004, during winter when colds are naturally common. Some of the colds may have been due to natural exposure, not the chill procedure.
• No objective airflow data. Nasal airflow measurements (NPR) were tried but were too variable to use, so "objective" confirmation of nasal congestion was not possible.

Recommendations: Practical takeaways

Based on this study, patients who are concerned about catching colds may wish to consider the following:

1. Keep your feet warm in cold weather. This study specifically suggests that cooling the feet could trigger cold symptoms in some people. Warm socks and appropriate footwear are simple measures.
2. Remember that colds are viral infections. The best way to prevent a cold is still to avoid exposure to cold viruses — wash your hands regularly and avoid close contact with people who are actively sneezing and coughing.
3. If you are prone to frequent colds, be extra careful. The study found that people who developed colds after chilling also reported more colds each year. This "common cold constitution" group might be more sensitive to cold exposure.
4. Do not assume a chill is the only cause. Chilling may turn a hidden infection into a visible one, but you likely had a virus in your system already.
5. Watch for future research. The authors call for further studies to determine whether the cold symptoms linked to chilling are truly associated with confirmed respiratory infection.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can getting cold feet actually give me a cold?

In a 2005 study of 180 healthy volunteers, 14.4% of those whose feet were chilled in 10°C water for 20 minutes reported cold symptoms over the next 4–5 days, compared with 5.6% of a control group. The researchers suggest chilling may trigger a cold only in people already carrying a hidden virus, not cause one by itself.

What did the study find about cold symptoms after chilling feet?

The study found that 14.4% of chilled participants reported suffering a cold in the following days, versus 5.6% of controls. When symptom scores were used, 28.8% of the chilled group met the threshold for a cold, compared with 8.8% of controls. Chilling did not cause immediate symptoms.

Did the study prove that cold feet cause colds?

No. The study did not test for actual cold viruses, so it cannot prove participants were infected. Symptoms were self-reported, and people who believe in the folklore might be biased. The main result was just below the significance cutoff, though two other symptom analyses were stronger. The study was also done in winter when colds are common.

What can I do to reduce my chance of cold symptoms?

The study suggests keeping your feet warm in cold weather may help if you are prone to colds. However, colds are viral infections, so the most effective way to prevent them is still to avoid exposure: wash your hands regularly and avoid close contact with people who are actively sneezing and coughing.

Why might chilling trigger a cold if I already have a virus?

Researchers propose that cooling the skin activates a reflex that narrows blood vessels in the nose and upper airways. This may inhibit local immune defenses, allowing a virus already present in a symptom-free, sub-clinical form to multiply and produce symptoms. So the chill may 'tip the balance' rather than cause the infection.

Can a second opinion help if I keep getting colds after my feet get chilled?

A second opinion is reasonable when recurring cold symptoms after chilling are being managed without clarity about whether a hidden viral infection is involved. The chilled-feet research did not test for actual cold viruses, so symptoms were self-reported and not confirmed as infection. A second opinion can review whether your pattern fits a tendency toward frequent colds, since people who developed colds after chilling reported more colds each year. Diagnostic Detectives Network provides independent expert second opinions.

Source Information

This patient-friendly article is based on the following peer-reviewed research:

• Original title: Acute cooling of the feet and the onset of common cold symptoms
• Authors: Claire Johnson and Ronald Eccles
• Journal: Family Practice, 2005; Volume 22, pages 608–613
• Publisher: Oxford University Press
• DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmi072
• Funding: The study was funded by Cardiff University. The sponsor had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or publication.
• Ethical approval: Approved by the South East Wales Local Research Ethics Committee.
• Conflicts of interest: None declared.

Note: This patient-friendly article is based on peer-reviewed research. It is intended for educational purposes and should not replace individual medical advice.