A Case for Clinical Concentration Upon the Ultradian Frequency Domain

Abstract

Most currently available chronobiological monitoring devices have been designed for evaluation of physiologic rhythms in the circadian and infradian domains. Discrete (e.g. respiration or pulse) or continous (e.g. blood pressure, temperature) physiologic parameters occur with high density within these circadian and infradian rhythms. Both the relative density of these data and the length of the measured span necessary for accurate evaluation of such rhythms cause severe theoretical and practical problems for those interested in quantifying them. An important culprit on the theoretical side, is the same villain who is at the root of all homeostatic science, non-rhythm qualified data averaging. The inferred defense for this practice is the untested and unwarranted assumption that the circadian and infradian rhythm characteristics are more pertinent or meaningful than is the predictable variability within the ultradian frequency domain. Non (circadian stage) rhythm qualified data averaging cannot be justified in order to estimate a suboptimally broad “normal range”, and it cannot be justified when handling long dense data series used to estimate circadian and infradian rhythm characteristics.