Talk:Bioenergetic systems

Energy High‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as High-importance).

Lactic Acid

When glucose is broken down anaerobically its aim isnt to produce lactic acid it just a waste product luckly the body deals with it aerobically. just thought you could word it better. Wikistiki69 08:52, November 5, 2008 lactic acid is green stuff in your body Lactic acid or lactate is not a waste product. It's a very useful energy substrate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.118.225 (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Activity

Which energy system predominates while no activity is being performed? Or perhaps better wording would be no exercise. For example, while resting, writing an essay, or merely sitting and conversing, which energy system is being used the most? 66.18.46.231 (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The organisim maintains energy homeostasis at all times, but generally activity entails more catabolic processes and rest or sleep more anabolic ones (conversion of serotonin to melatonin is anabolic)RotogenRay (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

new title

retitle this to "Energy systems in the Human body. call it biological energy sources. Energy systems is too broad for this articles' focus on purely biological systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.21.162 (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the scientific name should be used.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be named Metabolic pathways. That's the title for the three energy system's unit we're learning in class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.120.97 (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, despite what the scientific community may call it, "energy systems" itself is too broad of a title for it to focus on biological energy systems alone. You are neglecting that there are inorganic energy systems such as the burning of fossil fuels, renewable energy, and inorganic heat transfers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.119.177.184 (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree - the existing title can be confused with numerous other 'energy systems' including those identified above e.g. combustion of fossil fuels, flows of energy around the Earth etc.Willu47 (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)willu47[reply]

A disambiguation paranthesis would be necessary, like Energy systems (metabolism).--79.119.213.230 (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest Energy Conversion (human and animal metabolism)Paul1956b (talk) 02:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Energy Pathways could be considered.Lithiumhead (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article could be expanded to encompass more than just ATP (cellular energy generation) and focus on the energy aspect rather than signalling pathways. The problem with 'pathway' is while many energy processes are cycles, some aren't. "Energy Systems" is an apt title if the article would explore more than just one system.RotogenRay (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I learned it as Bioenergetic Systems since it has to do with Bioenergetics. There already is a page titled Bioenergetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.141.248 (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

ATP-PC is right, but on the bold headline it says ATP-CP, need to flip the letters around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.135.194 (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify usage of Phosphogen System versus Phosphagen System; both forms are used in this article, and is very confusing. I believe "phosphagen system" refers specifically to the combination of stored ATP and stored PC in muscle cells (per Powers and Howley, Exercise Physiology, 8th ed.,2012, ISBN 978-0-07-802253-1) Paul1956b (talk) 02:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Bioenergetic systems (NAC) No such user (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Energy systems → Energy system (biology) – This was discussed several years ago, but never acted on. The term is highly ambiguous, with any number of possible meanings, including the general concept of public utility systems that provide energy to consumers, or systems within an appliance or other piece of technology that control its energy use. I happened to find this page while trying to link the term in a quote about energy systems for urban planning areas. bd2412 T 02:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – yes the current title is awful. But it would be better to pick a descriptive title that doesn't look like parenthetical disambiguation, such as Biological energy system. Maybe the plural even makes sense, since it's about the collection of three different systems. Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be fine with any reasonable alternative. The bar is closing; it doesn't have to go home, but it can't stay here. bd2412 T 03:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I recommend Metabolic energy systems like these books use. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think either "metabolic" or "biological" would be fine. bd2412 T 05:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong rename to something. ATP metabolism ? This is clearly not about the general topic of energy systems, or even most people's conception of what an energy system is. It clearly isn't the most obvious meaning, the electrical grid and mains power. Alot of information is already in the adenosine triphosphate article... -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for now). There is no Energy system (disambiguation) for this article to be confused with. Let's worry about that when it happens. Until then, moving it is just futile bureaucracy. All it needs for now is a dab link to Energy Systems Language. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Biological energy systems seems better than energy system (biology), but the biology concept needs to be in the title. --Kkmurray (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, or such as Biological energy system or similar, but not stay as is. There does not need to be a Energy system (disambiguation) for this article to be confused with. That can be created tomorrow. The real world exists today, and we take our titling needs from the real world not chasing our own wikitail ;) In ictu oculi (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support- as this title is ambiguous. Also, is it just me, or does anyone else think this article duplicates cellular respiration and bioenergetics? I also support the merge with bioenergetics.Qxukhgiels (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but prefer Metabolic energy systems since that appears in sources, while Biological energy systems does not much (and where it does occur is more likely to be about photosynthesis and other such non-ATP-related systems, not the topic of this article). Dicklyon (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest, actually, moving this to Metabolic energy systems and then creating a short article at Biological energy systems indicating that the subject includes all systems by which all biological entities generate or distribute energy. The current title, Energy systems, would become a disambiguation page listing at least these as a topic and subtopic, and Public utility. bd2412 T 18:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Dicklyon (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to anything more specific. Stickee (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was going to suggest it be moved to Energy metabolism. This is the definitive phrase used on the Nature website, so it presumably has some authority behind it.[1] But that wiki page is already a redirect to Bioenergetics (which has its own definition at Nature:[2]). The question then arises, are energy metabolism and bioenergetics sufficiently distinct to warrant their own articles, or would it be better to merge the present article into Bioenergetics? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose current and nomination. This article is very poorly titled. Support instead any of the following:

Energy systems in biology (simpler)
Bioenergetic systems (possibly nice consistency with Bioenergetics)
Metabolic energy systems (technically, the topic seems to be energy metabolism, which redirects to Bioenergetics)

but:

Oppose Biological energy systems as per Dicklyon, as biological systems (such as humans) can store energy in very diverse ways.
Oppose parenthetical disambiguation, as a more descriptive natural title is called for. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on its popularity in sources, I change my favorite to Bioenergetic systems. Any objections? It would be nice to get this closed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I have no objection to anything that frees up the current title for disambiguation. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's a quorum: Dicklyon, SmokeyJoe, Stickee, db2412, and others who seem to lean the same way. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Bioenergetic systems. It faces no opposition. There is no very strong support for something different. The status quo is roundly unsupported. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.