Guest guest Posted May 14, 2001 Report Share Posted May 14, 2001 Anyone interested in new and innovative approaches to the analysis of heart rate etc. should look into the HeartMath organization. They helped me with my Master's thesis on psychologically mediated heart rate variability during tournament tennis. They also work with quite a few cardiologists doing spectrum analyses (heart rate variability studies). They are at: http://www.heartmath.org Dr Roland A. Carlstedt Roland A. Carlstedt, Ph.D. President PsychoSports www.psychosports.net ----------------- RxTxEx@... wrote: >> Understandably the scientists cited in 'Scientific American' could >> conclude that chaotic heartrate may be " normal " at times. Wayne Hill: >That's like saying that it's understandable that we could conclude >that the world is round. The conclusion that heartbeat is chaotic >was inevitable, because it's a fact. All normal heartbeats are >chaotic. A heartbeat that is NOT chaotic is doomed to fail. This is >a simple fact. It's the way it works, and the discovery that this is >the way it works should be the basis for huge steps forward in >cardiology. > >Irregularity and arrhythmia (in the sense you're familiar with) are >different things. A normal heart simply does not beat the same way >twice in a row, yet this does not mean that the beating is >pathological. Someone once said that history doesn't repeat itself, >but it rhymes (anyone have the reference handy?). This is what we're >talking about: the normal heart doesn't beat exactly the same way >twice in a row, yet it beats similarly all the time. >> It is obvious there are times when a person's arrhythmia produces >> no ill effects -- at least not in the measurable future. >> However, that study was done 11 years ago. Wayne Hill: >It doesn't matter when it was done: it was right, as has been >confirmed repeatedly since. The current leader in the field of >applying appropriate (and I mean this very pointedly) analysis to >cardiac function is Ditto, at Georgia Tech. >> Perhaps of more importance is there are so many variables to >> " health " . Homeostasis is a complexity that only our Creator >> knows and our human, finite minds will never completely understand >> ... no matter how much we love the challenge of physiology! Wayne Hill: >I'm not convinced of this. >> You are correct ... The safety of exercise programs cannot be >> guaranteed by EKG's or even echocardiograms... Again, there are >> multiple variables to the composition of " good health " . However, >> we obviously must refer those at risk to cardiac specialists. Wayne Hill: >I don't believe we really know which patients are truly at risk yet: >we just know which patients display certain risk factors. Dr. Siff >is the poster-boy for the failure of risk factor identification of >disease (sorry, Mel, I didn't mean to spring this on you in public >like this, but the committe met and it's already been decided and, >well, there it is). Even a renowned cardiac specialist is in the >dark when it comes to many problems. >> Anyone who experiences an irregular heart rhythm should been seen >> by, ideally, a top electrophysiologist to determine if their >> condition can be rectified. Wayne Hill: >Here's a thought: I'd guess that, worldwide, 99.99% of such people >have no such access. If this situation were improved 100-fold, then >only 99% of such people would have no such access. If someone has a >cardiac problem that is easily identifiable (say, an arrhythmia >obvious enough that their physician can detect it) and needs a top >electrophysiologist to examine them, then there's something wrong >with Medicine. > >Here's an idea: how about developing a signal processing analysis >that resides in every EKG machine in the world that extracts >information more advanced than any cardiologist currently has access >to, then displays it in whatever local language the physician/nurse/ >EMT/midwife understands? I am convinced this is possible, yet I >don't believe serious steps are being taken in this direction. > >I'm not blaming anyone in particular for this state of affairs, but >Medicine simply doesn't talk/listen very well to other technical >fields. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.