Talk:Anabolism

message: I removed the stub tag both because this article is getting to be slightly longer than is classically considered a stub, and catabolism, which is almost exactly the same size, does not have one. D-rew 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub tag

message: This is just flat wrong. Read the definitions of anabolic and catabolic. Either can occur while awake or asleep. They have more to do with nutrition and lack of severe illness or stress than with sleep/wake. Thanks. alteripse 17:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: anabolism/catabolism is not sleep/wake cycle

message: Can anyone explain to me why when fasting the body is supposed to eat its own muscles rather than fatty deposits? It just strikes me as odd how when your having trouble getting food your body's reaction would be to decrease your ability to hunt down more. Darkling235 17:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is sort of an oversimplification but there is a grain of truth in it: even with early stages of fasting, some muscle catabolism begins while ample fat may remain. I think the answer is that more than energy must be supplied, and fat may be a good energy source, but muscles serve as an amino acid source. Our organs and tissues have ongoing needs for at least some synthesis of protein even when fasting, and muscle is the only possible source. alteripse 03:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catabolism 

message: I suggest we change the title to "anabolism and catabolism" to make it more accurate when linked to from metabolism or cell metabolism.
Rozzychan 18:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather have Catabolism split out into a separate article. One is not simply the reverse of the other; they are separate concepts and thus, in my opinion, deserve separate articles. Rl 09:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anabolism and Catabolism

message: I have proposed splitting anabolism into anabolism and catabolism.
My reason for doing so is that the article, anabolism, discusses two distinct topics, anabolism and catabolism.
If there are no objections, I will split the article on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006, 4 weeks from today (Tuesday, September 5, 2006).
ENIAC 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be better to merge this (both topics) into Metabolism, as anabolism and catabolism are types of metabolism, inter-related, and these are rather short articles anyway. —Centrx→talk • 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree: they can both stand on themselves. Metabolism is way to broad. Remember that many articles link to these terms, and users seeking clarification of these words would get lost in an article like metabolism.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Metabolism is a very short article, it just links to various particular processes, somewhat like this one, but I am not medically knowledgeable enough to say what classifications would be appropriate. —Centrx→talk • 19:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How would it work to split them up, and categorize anabolism as a stub?  I am not expert on the feild, but it seems like there would be much more information one could add to anabolism.  Maybe splitting up the pages will encourage expansion. -ENIAC (Talk) (Current Projects) 14:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't think merging into metabolism is a good idea, these concepts are essentially linked, and the understanding of one aids the understanding of the other. Splitting would unavoidably cause duplication of the same information. Maybe we could create an article Anabolism and catabolism, similar to what I've done with Enzyme induction and inhibition?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this proposal also. alteripse 23:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds like a way to take care of it to me.  I think we should rename the page to Anabolism and catabolism. -ENIAC (Talk) (Current Projects) 22:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That is not the proper naming of articles. The enzyme one should be merged or renamed to a more accurate title, or split. Similarly, Anabolism and Catabolism should either be separate articles or should be merged into Metabolism. Having a conjunctive title is just a stop-gap, it is not a final solution. Encyclopedia articles belong in singular, well-defined places. —Centrx→talk • 22:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree: some concepts are so intertwined and cannot be treated separately. It's a natural way of covering matters IMHO. But this page can be split, I do not object.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When they are so intertwined, they almost always have a general, single name that includes both intertwined concepts, in this case Metabolism. —Centrx→talk • 20:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I once again purpose splitting the article. -ENIAC (Talk) (Current Projects) 13:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Go for it, but don't put them in the same title like that. —Centrx→talk • 17:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I will split up the page on September 24, 2006 unless there are more objections. -ENIAC (Talk) (Current Projects) 14:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split: Anabolism

message: To put it another way, anabolic processes use up energy (endergonic) while catabolic processes produce energy (exergonic). 
I moved this sentence from the intro. Linguistically the sentence is false (the assertion is not a restating of the previous concept), but that is just awkward writing, while I think the concept itself needs better explanation. Typical anabolic processes of synthesis of storage macromolecules or growth of organs certainly consume energy, but so do many processes that we think of as catabolic, such as glycogen breakdown to maintain blood glucose, or muscle breakdown to provide gluconeogenic substrates, or release of cytokines and cortisol in response to stress, or increasing body temperature to produce fever, etc. In other words, most catabolic processes consume energy from outside the organism as well. Can anyone suggest a better way to express this generalization or its limits?  alteripse 11:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: thermodynamics

message: Removed merge tag. See Talk:Biosynthesis.AshLin 13:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: removed merge tag

message: In 2012 is well known that sleep and rest are activities related to a preminency of an anabolic activity...for resarches on this issues please search by yourselves... I have not time... but we must say that sleep and rest are related to anabolic activities more than catabolic ones...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.37.171.198 (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: to clarify

message: Word not used in page. 86.139.166.113 (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does "anabolite" redirect here?