As some of you might have seen from my introduction thread, I'm new to the bow hunting game. Gone are the days I could line up my cross hairs behind the ear of a trophy reedbuck or impala and squeeze the trigger to see the animal disappear from my sight into a heap hidden from view by long veld grass. With this in mind, it has been a time of personal growth and learning that one so often finds themselves in with this game. I've taken to learning as much as I can about shot placement and the anatomy of my intended quarry and this research unearthed an interesting thought. A medical doctor applied what he knows of the bodies response to trauma to hunting, specifically what shot placement would result in the fastest kill, heart or a lung shot? Now to me this was a no brainer, hit him in the heart and let physics do the rest. He offered an alternate hypothesis. When the body is exposed to trauma to the heart, its natural response is to slow the heart rate to protect the heart and limit further damage. When the body experiences catastrophic blood loss and the resulting drop in blood pressure the exact opposite happens, the heart rate quickly rises in an attempt to restore normal blood pressure and as a result speeds up the loss of blood and brings death sooner. His conclusion was therefore that a lung shot, just above the heart so that the arrow would atleast nick the arteries leaving the heart would cause the animal to bleed out and die sooner resulting in a bigger and shorter blood trail making tracking easier and quicker while also ensuring less suffering on the part of the animal. The other consideration from a hunters point of view is that a pure heart shot leaves less room for error for a rifle hunter and ever less for a bow hunter considering the proximity of the large bone structures of the upper leg and shoulder to the heart. Also, the fact that the heart is so low, a low shot that might result in a wounded animal or outright miss on a heart shot where it would just mean an arrow in the heart if the shot was taken aiming at the center of the heart lung area. Now I know both shots will always result in death but what are your thoughts on the idea? Are there any doctors or vets who can back up or dispute the theory offered by the doctor in question? Am I barking up the wrong tree to question what seems so obvious or do you think there is merit in the case?