Talk:Catabolism

On hormones

"Classic" and "Newer" catabolic hormones appear to be subsets of "catabolic hormones," yet "newer" is presented under the heading "classic." This presentation is confusing or misleading. I am a lay person, but to me, "newer" just doesn't seem like the right word here. Are these hormones new? Or is it that they are more recently discovered or more recently studied or more recently considered? It might be better to simply list the "newer" hormones in a list with the "classic" hormones. After all, why make a distinction? Is there a difference? If an important distinction exists, that distiction should be explained. If there is no distiction, we shouldn't distinguish.Chris Vandemore 18:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The person who added the new hormones screwed up the apparent hierarchies. I am fixing it. alteripse 13:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Empirical formula of carbohydrates

The section on th empirical formula of carbohydrates is incorrect. This was once believed to be true but has since shown to be incorrect. The formula is at best a general rule of thumb.MattDal 05:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Return to Redirect

This does not really make sense. If you move the subsections of catabolism to another "stub", we just have two stubs in a row now. Thise short intros should stay at Cell metabolism, to refer to the detailed articles about each. It is disturbing to a user to keep clicking through short outlines to get to the meat if that is what they are seeking. If not, I would think a user would prefer all the "superficial" stuff on one page if possible. This approach also plays havoc with the Categories. - Marshman 18:12, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The most common simplistic explanation of anabolic and catabolic reactions include the mention of whether there is overall release or consumption of energy and this feature decides their nomenclature. This also has primacy over what it is rather than catabolic reactions are <whatever you have presently explained>. The first sentence of the article is shown in popups of wikilinks and this is a valuable tool for persons skimming difficult articles for which they need to cross-refer cross-wiki. For this purpose this change is important. AshLin 07:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Completely rewritten for clarity and accuracy. Tim Vickers 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Photosynthesis

In talk:metabolisml we are discussing whether photosynthesis is a catabolic reaction. --Etxrge (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Breaking down to smaller units

Please read the following, then the question I have concerning it:
"In catabolism, large molecules such as polysaccharides, fatty acids, nucleic acids and proteins are broken down into smaller units such as monosaccharides, fatty acids, nucleotides and amino acids, respectively."
My question is: Does the second occurence of the phrase "fatty acids" seem redundant? I wonder if the word "other" should be put before it, or can it be reworded somehow so that the double occurence makes sense to people that are new to this subject? (Myself included.) Thank you. 98.202.38.225 (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Lipids" is better, since fatty acids are often components of lipids. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Anabolism

This is beautiful. Clear and simple. Thank you all. This is not my field. Perhaps someone whose field this is could have a look at anabolism, I found it foggy and convoluted until I read this entry. Anthony (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC) fdaasdfdsasdffdsadsfdsadsdfsaasdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.142.136 (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

See Also

Nocturnal post absorptive catabolism redirects to sleep. Why is this under see also? Jasoninkid (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Stub needs info. on catabolism in fasting, intermittent fasting, protein restriction, in cancer, in cancer prevention, in arthritis, etc.

Catabolism has health benefits and health costs, which should be discussed here.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2015

that are use in other anabolic reactions Grammar mistake in the use of 'use' should be used Cigsy (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)