Jump to content

Talk:Bioenergetic systems

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lactic Acid

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]
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 systemsEnergy 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]

Agreed. Dicklyon (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose current and nomination. This article is very poorly titled. Support instead any of the following:
but:

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]

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.