Talk:Frank–Starling law

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physiology Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of the heart.

I'm

I'm not so sure that Stroke Volume can be equal to End Diastolic Volume since there is residual volume. Stroke Volume would be equal to (End Diastolic Volume - Residual Volume). With heart disease the residual volume increases, but I don't believe that a healthy heart can eliminate it all together. EBRozen 08:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. End-diastolic volume is around 120ml, while end-systolic volume is around 50ml (for all of us 70-kg men :-), putting stroke volume at 70ml. Those are resting values, but even during exercise ESV isn't going to drop to zero. The heart's like a sponge in that no matter what the force of contraction, it's not going to be able to eject 100% of EDV. A more appropriate indicator of a healthy heart is ejection fraction, which should be above 0.5 in healthy individuals. But I don't know if that fact belongs in this article. --David Iberri (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-b

thank you for your idea , it's clear when i look for the relation between EDV and SV of the The heart. The equation SV = EDV - ESV is described why the curve doesn't initiate at the ( 0,0 )

How interesting in discussing of this subject.

i'll prepare my knowledge and see you , targeting for exchange about this topic

Error in Starling Curve/Venous Return Function diagram

There is a labelling error in this diagram. Increasing peripheral vascular resistance (vasoconstriction) will shift the venous return function UP, not down. Likewise, vasodilation will decrease PVR and will shift the venous return function down. These two labels are wrong and must be switched. Please consult a textbook or another resource if you think I am mistaken here, but I'm pretty sure that those two labels should be switched. Thanks.

David Duchovny?

David Duchovny? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.208.81.110 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Legge del cuore"

As an italian cardiologist, I knew the history of Maestrini, but it's not correct that among italian physicians it's known as "Legge di Maestrini". It is widely used "Frank-Starling Law" or "Legge del cuore" (with no reference to anyone). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.95.217.170 (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input! After reviewing the article, I noticed that references to both "Legge di Maestrini" and "Legge del cuore" are present. --Spyder212 (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planned Contributions/Edits

In the next few weeks, I plan on adding more information and editing this article. Overall, the article lacks some citations so I'm hoping to the make the article more reliable by adding more citations. I am also planning on expanding the history section by discussing what Frank and Starling each specifically found and then how their findings were used to formulate the mechanism. In the physiology section, I am planning on expanding the information about the cellular basis of the mechanism by including information about all the cellular processes that contribute to the mechanism. Lastly, I would also like to add more about why this mechanism is significant in the human heart. Some sources I may use include: http://www.clinsci.org/content/ppclinsci/54/1/1.full.pdf, http://jeb.biologists.org/content/211/13/2005, http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/heart/exercises/set1-3.html, http://pie.med.utoronto.ca/CA/CA_content/CA_cardiacPhys_preload.html, http://circres.ahajournals.org/content/90/1/11 Mczachor1 (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank–Starling law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109113213/http://www.ancecardio.it/it/doc/1161358734110_4013.pdf to http://www.ancecardio.it/it/doc/1161358734110_4013.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]