Talk:Heart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Heart article.
Article policies
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Heart as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Italian or Chinese language Wikipedias.
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Contents

[edit] Diagram problem

There is a problem on one of the valves in a diagram on this page-it labels the valve aortic valve, when in fact it is the tricuspid.

Also, in the diagram of the heart, the auricle is labled as the right atrium.McCrae is cool 76.99.51.107 03:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved this statement here:

In warm-blooded animals, the action of the heart muscles also converts oxygen into heat to warm the animal.

A couple of problems with this:

  • oxygen isn't converted into heat, but used to burn glucose which produces some heat
  • all muscles contribute to the heating, not just the heart
  • the sentence suggests that in cold blooded animals the heart muscle does not produce heat, but there's in fact no difference.

AxelBoldt 17:31, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Aztec heart removal

I find that this part of the article really is so peripheral to the subject that it shouldn´t be linked in the main article83.249.50.227 (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I also find that this is true about the "cadavers heart". It is not something that a person that looks up "heart" is interested in knowing. 83.249.50.227 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Are heart muscle cells ever replaced ?

I heard someone claim that "Every living cell in our body, excluding certain organs such as the brain and heart, are completely replaced every 3 years."

I read the heart article hoping to confirm or deny this statement. The Red blood cell article says "Human red blood cells ... live a total of about 120 days.". I wish there were a similar statement here or at muscle.

-- DavidCary 22:17, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well muscles will atrophy if they are not exercised. If the heart is a muscle, I imagine the same rules apply for that organ. Since it is working constantly, it probably is having it's cells rejuvenated and toned by the work it is doing. I'm no cardiologist, but it would make sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.73.144 (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Many cells in the body are *not* replaced (although the individual molecules that make up the cells may well undergo turnover). This includes nerves and cardiomyocytes. Broadly speaking, cardiac muscle cells do not divide (they are terminally differentiated), and so any that die from disease cannot be replaced. They can, however, grow in size in response to changes in demand on the heart by the body (eg exercise, following infarction). This can itself cause problems (hypertrophy). Accepted wisdom for many years was that we are born with a fixed number of cardiac muscle cells, and that new ones can never be generated. Current research indicates that there may in fact be cardiac stem cells, although the regenerative capacity of adult heart muscle is extremely low (compare to, eg., the liver). Sorry to not have references yet, just a quick bit to answer the above question. I am a (former) cardiac research scientist, and may well get round to editing the article or related ones properly if needed. Ben. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.144.24 (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The heart in literature and metaphor

I think the that the section "The heart in literature and metaphor" should have it's own article. It's location at the end of this article seems very strange. S Sepp 11:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

You mean "its own article"? I'm not convinced. JFW | T@lk 18:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] literature and metaphore section relocated

While the section regarding the symbolism (william loves kayla )febular 02 2008( L ) and metaphor of the heart in literature is good information, it was hardly appropriate in the middle of an article on the physiology of the heart. This section has been moved to its own article Heart_in_literature and properly referenced in the heart "See Also" section. -DanD

Don't use underscores, Dan. The Wiki knows what you mean if you use spaces. JFW | T@lk 11:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm still learnin. -DanD

[edit] Henry Gray (1821–1865). Anatomy of the Human Body

anyone care or mind to copy from there [1] ? it's an encyclopedia from 1918, copyright died, hence public domain --Fairychild 13:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not useful clinically. No one uses it except for collection purposes. Andrewr47 03:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Article focuses almost entirely on human heart. Speciesism? deeptrivia (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article should focus more on other species, or at least specify that "first aid" does not apply to the hearts of fish, etc. That's why I
  1. added information about non-vertebrate hearts in the intro
  2. made "first aid" and "diseases" sub categories of "human heart"
  3. added a non-vertebrate heart stub --JianLi 01:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As more is known about the human heart than about the heart of any other organism, I feel this article should focus on the human heart in the first instance. I also strongly feel that encyclopedias are by definition human-centric.

Just imagine: "Bacteria are strongly opposed to antibiotics, as they constitute a mortal danger. Indeed, some strains have mounted organised resistance by the exchange of plasmids." That's BPOV. JFW | T@lk 12:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

it eas cool

[edit] Evolution of the heart

How did the heart evolve in earlier life and become a specialized blood pumping organ? The article should make this clear.

That's a very good quesion, and one I don't think is covered adequately. For whatever reason, the movement of the blood circulation precedes the formation of the heart -- and this fact is really most curious. To explain this phenomenon, there are some who contend that the heart is not so much a pump, as a Hydraulic Ram -- an organ built-up from cumulative peripheral activity. See exerpt from link, below:
In 1932, Bremer of Harvard filmed the blood in the very early embryo circulating in self-propelled mode in spiralling streams before the heart was functioning. Amazingly, he was so impressed with the spiralling nature of the blood flow pattern that he failed to realize that the phenomena before him contradicted the pressure propulsion principle -- raising the spectre that the heart was not merely a pump forcing inert blood to move with pressure but that the blood was propelled with its own biological momentum -- as can be seen in the embryo, and boosts itself with induced momenta from the heart. The pressure does not cause the blood to circulate but is caused by interrupting the circulation. [2]

[edit] Really odd problem with this article... anyone else notice this?

The article contains this sentence; "At 21 days after conception, the human heart rate begins beating a 75-80 beats per minute and accelerates linearly for the first month of beating." (emphasis added)

Notice how it says "a 75-80" instead of "at 75-80". I figured it was a typo, and hit "edit" to fix it, and saw that in the edit screen, it does say at. So then I thought someone had fixed it in the last few seconds, but when I refreshed the article, it was still a. So then I went into edit and changed it to att. I hit preview and it still came up a. No matter what I did to it, changing it to aTTTTtttTTTtt even, it still displays as a.

What's going on with that? Does anyone else notice that, or is it something with my browser? I do a lot of copyediting on Wikipedia... if it's just my computer things are displaying weird on then maybe I ought to stop copyediting before I go and change all sorts of stuff to attttttttttttttttttttttttttttt. ONUnicorn 15:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

2 days later and I FINALLY figured out what was going on!!! The caption under the picture was the same as the sentence I was trying to edit, only the caption said at and the sentence said a. Hence I was editing the caption to say atttTTTttt, and the sentence still said a. ONUnicorn 14:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New pic

Could we add this somewhere to illustrate the way the heart is used in modern society?--Chili14 (Talk) 22:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

does anyone know where they got the idea for that illustration of the heart


[edit] Replacement image

Just curious, why was the old illustration replaced by a much harder-to-read version? The text in the new pic is almost totally illegible, even at higher resolution. -- Wapcaplet 04:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The older image is much more readable, though not as cool

[edit] Cor

Why does Cor redirect here? I was looking for information on the British interjection. --Popefelix 14:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Cor is the latin word for heart. --WS 00:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
(Clarification) Using Latin names is common practice in anatomy. Ergo, the observed redirect. 82.139.85.106 08:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make Wikipedia more secure

My friend went to Wikipedia and wrote something on the heart page that said hearts were purple. Since that's not true, you should make it more secure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.91.70 (talk) 23:52, April 10, 2007 (UTC)

This is not a security issue; the decision to allow anyone, with or without an account, was a conscious one. It has its drawbacks, sure, but consensus apparently has it that blocking anons would be worse. 82.139.85.106 09:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
There was a fairly heated discussion about that. However, I disagree with restricting access. Have you seen the Main Page? What's written there is "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I think it should stay that way. What your friend did was vandalism. Wikipedians are fighting that through Recent Changes patrol, and watchlisting.
Also, please remember to sign your post using four tildes (~~~~). It was quite hard for me to find your edit in the history so I could add the template. Thank you, and feel free to contact me should you have further questions. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 10:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haart or Heart

I've just noticed the article about the heart is titled haart. This should be fixed.

Has since been fixed. 82.139.85.106 09:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Beats

I've read the heart beats 2 billion times in one's life. Do we have a source saying it beats 2.5 billion times?--Mack540 00:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If no one changes this in the future, then I will. --72.90.174.122 21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That kind of numbers is just bullshit. take them out of the article anyways. 80.144.107.200 16:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the number is useful and interesting. Of course without giving any justification, it really doesn't mean much.

It would be better to state what the hypotheses (BPM, lifespan) are which lead to the 3.5 billion number.

The average number of BPM is 72. I got this fromh ttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/heart/heartfacts.html.

So according to my very simple calculations, 3.5 billion beats is equal to 92 years : 3.5E+9/(72*365*24*60). I don't think any country is at an average lifespan of 92 yet.

The number I have seen on several authoritative web sites is 2.5 billion, which works out to a lifespan of 66 years at 72 BPM.

I will make the change. Fharper1961 11:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Number of beats attributed to a single individual in a lifetime is an endeavor of negligible clinical importance. Wikipedia articles regarding time variables and cardiac [chronotropy] may better serve your curiosity. Clinically, one could use beta blockers and digoxin to slow the heart rate for many years. Would this improve mortality? --Lbeben 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] poor article :(

poor article ;( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.144.107.200 (talk) 18:11, June 23, 2007 (UTC)

entirely random person above but is there supposed to be a "heart shaped symbol" in place of that wierd red question mark in the article or is that the symbol and my computers screwed up?124.176.21.7 22:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
It shows as a ? for me too. I'll see what I can do about it. 82.139.85.106 08:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It's fine for me. What browser are you using? Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 10:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article only refers to the human heart

There's no discussion of the heart in other vertebrates, nor is there any discussion of the analogues in invertebrate species. Serendipodous 07:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I was going to post the same comment. The differences between e.g. mammals, reptiles, birds and insects are enormous. 82.139.85.106 08:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

write about etymology as well. --202.164.149.222 08:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What's stopping YOU from researching it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

198.102.159.208 (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC) This article should simply be heart (human) with a seperate article referring to what characteristics link all the different types of heart, and links to the various types of hearts (4 chambered {human} 2 chambered {fish} etc.)

seperate -> separate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.202.125 (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citing error

Footnote number five is from a charactor in a movie. While this may be true, it should be cited from a medical source, not from a fictional doctor. 64.105.66.170 17:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major missing info at the "Functioning" paragraph

The entire paragraph consists of a single sentence, describing only a little. And then only about the right side of the heart. What happened to all the left side functions??? The single sentence ends: "relates to electrical stimulation of one cell spreading to neighboring cells." Does NOT make sense.

68.228.82.130 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It was probably removed during a spate of vandalism, and has now been restored. Please check to see if it makes any more sense. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks. I thought vandal-gerbils were the problem, given the lock down, etc. Odd, how small minds entertain themselves. Oh well. 68.228.82.130 (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

GENESIS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.181.217 (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] = No info power and energy needs

216.239.79.122 (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Since the page is protected can someone add the info say from here http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/IradaMuslumova.shtml 10x

[edit] Omg...

That picture says the heart was removed from a 64 year old male...

I thought you couldn't live without your heart. Did he die when they took it out? T_T!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.229.167 (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] heart

the heart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.210.6 (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)