|Carbohydrate has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carbohydrate article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
|To-do list for Carbohydrate:|
|Priority 1 (top)|
Structure of monosaccarides
Am I the only one thinking the glucose and fructose molecules look wrong. They seem to be correct empirically and based on their quantities of atoms. But the structure seems is not cyclic like most monosaccharides. Look at http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Carbohydrates.html for soem ideas on how to draw these molecules properly. I can draw them myself on paper quite well, but I usually find them difficult to do accurately on computer. I might scan in a few drawings of molecules ive got lying around when I find time, if anyone can find any use for them.
Also, when you say "but many important carbohydrates, like deoxyribose have more hydrogen" you are technically wrong. The formular for ribose (if you look at the empirical formula you can see mine is consistent) is . The thing about deoxyribose is, as the name suggests, an oxygen removed. Not hydrogen atoms.
"Carbohydrates consist almost exclusively of just three elements: carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen"
When you say this, 'almost' is perhaps a bad words. ALL carbohydrates are carbon, hydrogen and oxygen always. Glycoproteins and the like are not carbohydrates, so they are exempt from this rule. Pure carbohydrates, cellulose, glycogen, fructose, maltose, etc are all made from carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.
"The binding between one of the two sugars results in the loss of a hydrogen atom H from one molecule and a hydroxyl group from the other." This is essentually correct, it is known as a condensation reaction. I would edit this myself to add but I would rather not do so at this time, perhaps someone can fix this article.
I see there is a link to the nomenclature of carbohydrates. I personally think if this information was rewritten carefully here in an easy to understand and presentable form it would be very useful. I might undertake this myself later on, as I have this page bookmarked.
Jedi Dan Thanks for listening
Carbohydrates can change between ring form and straight-chain form. Hopefully the changes I have made address most of your complaints, except for the easy to understand bit, which I'm not a good enough writer to do. It would be helpful if someone went over them.
Typically, carbohydrates are classified into the sweet sugars (monosaccharides and disaccharides) and the unsweet, starchy, polysaccharides. Monosaccharides are simple, crystalline sugars. Disaccharides are composed of two monosaccharides joined together (hence di-saccharides). Polysaccharides are very large molecules such as starch or glycogen, which are formed from many monosaccharides joined together (poly-saccharides).
The characterization of monosaccharides as sweet and crystalline, and polysaccharides as unsweet and starchy is looking at only a few well-known examples. I don't think it can be worked into something which is generally valid.
The image of very REFINED grain foods (white bread, pasta, flour, sugar are pictured) is captioned: "Unrefined grain products are rich sources of complex carbohydrates". This should be changed to a more appropriate image I think..
Negative health effects of carbohydrate restriction?
Do we have any references pointing negative health effects on carbohydrate restriction (N.B. not energy restriction only)? "Issue has not been studied extensively so far." Here are some references which found positive health effects on carbohydrate restriction:
- http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-8-75.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
NPOV -Nutrition section
The section is far too skewed in the "anti-carb" propaganda - since the dawn of agriculture carbs have been incredibly important staples in the human diet, in fact the access to carbs allowed civilization to develop. The focus on "processed" foods ignores the diets of the majority of the non western world. The section needs to be completely re-tooled. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It really isn't that access to carbs allowed civilization to develop. It was more that much easier access to a much larger amount of food produced by the advent of agriculture allowed more people to survive, and to spend less energy gathering food and more energy building a civilization. It wasn't the carbs, it was the convenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I came to this page looking for information on managing carbohydrates in my diet. What I found was scientific stuff that is a bit over my head. I think both are important, so I'd like to suggest that it would be great if Wikipedia could also include some basic information to help people make healthy diet choices. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)