Talk:Carbohydrate/Archive 1

Archive 1

A clear definition?

On many pages of wikipedia, the first line is a simple, easy to understand definition of the term. Could someone put this on the article? CowsPoluteMoreThanCars (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• How about:

"Carbohydrates come in two basic forms: complex and simple. Simple carbs are one, two, or at most three units of sugar linked together in single molecules. Complex carbs are hundreds or thousands of sugar units linked together in single molecules. Simple sugars are easily identified by their taste: sweet. Complex carbs, such as potatoes, are pleasant to the taste buds, but not sweet.

There are two groups of complex carbs: high fiber and low fiber. High-fiber, complex carbs are not digestible, at least not by human beings, because we do not have the enzyme to do the job. Cows have that enzyme; that is why they can get calories out of grass, and we cannot. The main stuff in high-fiber, complex carbs which is indigestible by humans is called "cellulose."

this is from Carbohydrates in Nutrition by Ron Kennedy, M.D. WSNRFN (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Chris

• Neither of the above is a definition. They do not tell what carbohydrates *are*; they only give some attributes of biological carbohydrates that are important in food science. Also, AFAIK cows do not have said enzyme; they rely on bacteria to break down cellulose. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Carbs" boom

I expected there to be information on the sudden boom of "low-carb" diets in this article. Why isn't there? --Antoshi 20:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Most likely because it does not have to do directly with information of Carbs, such as structure and uses, but you could probably add a link to it under the "see also" section. Matt White 23:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination

This article looks like it meets all the criteria, except that the section 'catabolism' doesn't really mean much at the moment, and needs to be expanded. Worldtraveller 10:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Gigantic and totally unexplained contradiction

"Strictly speaking, carbohydrates are not necessary for human nutrition because proteins can be converted to carbohydrates. The traditional diet of some cultures consists of very little carbohydrate, and these people remain relatively healthy. ... Very low carbohydrate diets can slow down brain and neural function because the nervous system especially relies on glucose." How could both of these statements possibly be true? If someone knows anything about this, go ahead and fix it and don't focus on responding to me, because I'm probably going to forget about this. Tyharvey313

Well technically one could be very stupid and yet perfectly healthy. Servingsper 06:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The information you're missing is that glucose can be synthesized from other molecules, just as you can get fat without eating any fat itself. See gluconeogenesis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard001 (talk • contribs) 03:44:51, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Refined Carbohydrates

An explanation of what refined carbohydrates are has not been provided and does not exist elsewhere. I can't seem to find an in-depth explanation of this on the net so far... --MatthewKarlsen but edit as 81.86.122.174 (talk · contribs)

Did you check the sugar article? David D. (Talk) 15:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I just did a quick check, they have a very good description of the differerences at the Sugar article. David D. (Talk) 15:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "complex carbohydrate"

I'm not sure exactly what this term means. Sometimes it seems like carbohydrates are always caloric foods (starch, sugar, etc.) and that thus they all have the same calories per gram. Other times it seems like "complex carbohydrates" includes some fiber (or is entirely fiber) which implies it should have a lower calories per gram than simple carbohydrates. I can't tell if fiber is really a carb or not. Boris B 11:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Breads, pastas, beans, potatoes, bran, rice and cereals are all high in carbohydrates." This is doubtless true, but these all seem to be low (or moderate?) in simple carbohydrate content. Was this sentence written with a definition of carbohydrate which doesn't include sugars, or could the sentence be modified to include candy, dessert pastries, and many sodas? I'm just fumbling toward a consistent working definition of "carbohydrate" here (i.e. including sugars or not, including fiber or not). Boris B 19:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The article certainly does not clarify the definitions of complex carbohydrates well. In answer to some of your specific questions, sugars, starches, and fiber are all definitely carbohydrates. There is no ambiguity there (although in some circles the term is used in non-technical ways to excluded fiber or other types of carbohydrates).

The term complex carbohydrate, to the extent that I have seen, is used in all of the following senses.

1) Any carbohydrate other than simple sugars.

2) Fiber

3) A group of carbohydrates that includes fiber (e.g. if a slice of bread has a lot of fiber in addition to the starch it is often said to have only complex carbohydrates whereas white bread does not).

4) Any carbohydrate or group of carbohydrates that has a low glycemic index (although how low depends on the source).

I believe in scientific discussion the first one would be considered the most "proper" definition although it is common for doctors to use the other definitions in many settings. The reason for the lack of clarity, as I understand it, is that at one time doctors believed that simple sugars were the only "bad" carbohydrates, so "complex carbohydrates" (which include starch and fiber) came to be synonymous with "good carbohydrates." Now it is recognized that some starches can be as bad or worse than sugar so, rather than admit they were wrong, some doctors and nutritionists have quietly altered how they use the term to fit the original intention of what they were trying to describe.

--Mcorazao 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Necessitating the use of fat in energy production?

I have a problem with this sentence in the Nutrition section of the article: "Proteins and fat are vital building components for body tissue and cells, and thus it could be considered advisable not to deplete such resources by necessitating their use in energy production." With the latter part of it, to be specific. According to what I read on cell metabolism, cells make energy by burning sugar, fat and oxygen or - in the absence of oxygen - by burning just sugar. This latter process is (if I understood correctly) used either for very brief periods of time or merely to supplement the first process. So fat is pretty much ALWAYS used for energy. So, while the second part of the sentence makes perfect sense when we're talking about proteins, it seems like a silly thing to say about fat. Daelyn 21:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Your conclusion "So fat is pretty much ALWAYS used for energy" is false and I don't see why you think it follows from the other things you said, which I think are accurate. Fat is used to form cell membranes. Because the brain is composed of a lot of long, thin connections, a large percentage of the mass of the brain is composed of cell membrane, and the healthy functioning of these membranes is important to brain function. Deficiency of omega-3 fats can lead to mental illness -- not because these fats are sometimes used to burn energy. They're an important component of cell membranes. Fats are also used to form many other substances such as hormones and eicosanoids. Burning them for energy is only one of their uses in the body.

The recommendation seems illogical to me: since fats are essential components of the body, to avoid necessitating their burning as energy, and therefore to eat a large percentage of carbohydrates, which cannot be used as components of the body. That seems all wrong to me. It's like saying that water is very valuable because it's so healthy so we shouldn't waste it by drinking it but should drink juice instead. It would make sense to have a minimum percentage of the diet as fats, and a minimum percentage as protein for use as a building block plus an additional percentage as either protein or carbohydrates for use as brain energy; I see no obvious need for any minimum carbohydrate intake, unless one makes the argument that using protein for energy leaves too much nitrogen to be excreted, and in that case the minimum carbohydrate intake should be just enough to provide energy for the brain -- much less than half the diet. Note Udo Erasmus' recommendations [1]; his food pyramids focus on a larger percentage of (healthy kinds of) fat, and he claims many benefits of this diet. --Coppertwig 12:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "and are also a source of energy for the body." --Coppertwig (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Insulin index

I'm not sure that this recently added sentence is true: "This [simplistic] system assumes that high glycaemic index foods and low glycaemic index foods can be mixed to make the intake of high glycaemic foods more acceptable.". I deleted the word "simplistic" as being POV. If true, this should at least be explained more fully and supported with references on the insulin index page, and perhaps moved to that page rather than stated here. How does the amount of a food affect insulin response? Would adding a slice of bread to a piece of pie make the pie more acceptable according to this system, or would you have to replace half the piece of pie with half the slice of bread to get a benefit? --Coppertwig 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

carbohydrates as non-essential nutrients

Sorry, but carbohydrates are essential, since if you tried using only fat and/or protein for energy, you will eventually become quite sick (or worse). On paper it looks like protein has a lot of energy but in practice it's not a very efficient way to get energy. This part of the article really needs to be cleaned up because it is misinformation. By the way, Coppertwig above mentions something about "just enough carbs to power the brain". How the heck do you measure the exact amount your brain needs? Sounds like a whole lotta silliness to me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.161.43.153 (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Carbohydrates are not essential nutrients as I have clarified above, and there are certainly scientific ways of measuring the glucose your brain needs. Richard001 03:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you a scientist, Richard001? How do you know carbs are not essential? For a healthy person, sure, maybe not, but for a well-functioning person, carbs are very needed. Protein does not make enough glucose to supplement cutting carbs out entirely. Low glucose equals lower brain function and nervous system problems. So, while a person will be perfectly physically fit, they'll be as stupid as Paris Hilton and as jittery as a mental patient! Health is not just physical as mental health is much more important than physical health. No-carb diets kill people or at least incapacitate them if they keep up the regimen for years.PokeHomsar (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am a scientist. The definition of an essential nutrient is one that cannot be synthesized by the body, which carbohydrates based on glucose certainly can. – ClockworkSoul 04:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that may be well and good, but so can Vitamin D and it's on the essential nutrient page. Every time you go outside, your body produces Vitamin D as a by-product of your fat cells interacting with UV rays. Why is it on the list then? There is a disease for lack of Vitamin D, called Rickets, which denotes that the body may produce Vitamin D, but not enough to keep one healthy. Same goes for glucose, especially if someone doesn't eat too many proteins and no carbohydrates, as protein is needed to produce the synthesized glucose. Of course, carbohydrates are a better resource for glucose than protein and produce more of it per gram. Glucose isn't made in the body unless protein is put into it or your body breaks down your muscles for lack of it. While I may have been somewhat mean, I'll give you that, but I was only mean to Paris Hilton, who deserves to be made fun of for her stupidity. No one can argue that she's stupid.PokeHomsar (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That's true, for people who have regular year-round access to sufficient sunlight. Many, many, many people don't, especially those in temperate climates who have to endure winters under layers of clothing or those who work evening shifts. For these people, because they cannot synthesize it, vitamin D is indeed an essential nutrient. That's why in many locales many foods are vitamin D fortified. The metabolic result, of nearly all foods, however, is pyruvate, with which the body can fairly easily either synthesize glucose or generate energy. An otherwise complete diet that happens to be low in carbohydrates – such as the one that some native peoples have survived on for millenia – supplies more than enough metabolic fuel to maintain health. – ClockworkSoul 04:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep mentioning Paris Hilton? And I agree with CWS. David D. (Talk) 05:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Octose?

Is there any monosaccharide containing 8 or more carbons? I don't know if it at all exist. In case, it does not exist, the nomenclature where 'triose, tetrose, pentose, hexose and so on' is reported, it is better to complete the sequence just by adding 'heptose' in stead of 'so on'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nprasunpriya (talk • contribs) 02:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

• The nomenclature is right, and there's certainly nothing preventing an octose from existing. I know of no such naturally occurring molecules, however, but that's not to say that they don't exist. – ClockworkSoul 12:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The size of the carbon skeleton ranges from 3 to 7 carbons long, so octose would have to be artificially synthesized, if possible, which I suppose it would be. Richard001 01:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I could be wrong (see monosaccharide). I'm not sure if the red links are natural or synthetic. Anything over seven would be extremely rare though. Richard001 04:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There are longer sugars: eight carbon ones include keto-deoxyoctulosonic acid (KdO), which is found in most gram negative bacteria, and N-acetylneuraminic acid (sialic acid) a nine carbon sugar found in most higher organisms (and many lower organisms). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencerw (talk • contribs) 03:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Doh - sialic acid, of course. That's a textbook example. Thank you. – ClockworkSoul 04:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

on hydrocarbons and carbohydrates

Obviously, both contain carbon and hydrogen. What is the difference? Is one a subset of the other? Do they have different Other Ingredients?

True hydrocarbons contain only carbon and hydrogen. Carbohydrates contain oxygen as well, although not all compounds of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen are carbohydrates. Cjh57 01:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Hydrate" does not mean "containing hydrogen;" it means "containing water." The formula for a carbohydrate is [C(H₂O)]_n, meaning that CH₂O, C₂(H₂O)₂, C₃(H₂O)₃, etc., are all valid carbs, whereas HCOCl would not be a valid carb even though it has H, C, and O. Kildon 06:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Exact definition of carbohydrates

Some say it may contain C, H, O in any proportion. Others say that H and O must follow a 2:1 ratio. Others say that C:H:O = 1:2:1 (e.g. this page as is currently)

• In this page with the '1:2:1' i think it is talking about unmodified monosaccharides which are, of course, not the same as carbohydrates at all. Deoxyribose (C₅H₁₀O₄)seems to be just as much a carbohydrate as ribose.

Also the page Sugar Alcohol says that sugar alcohols (e.g. glycerol, sorbitol) are carbohydrates which seems perfectly reasonable to me (though i'm not a graduate chemist) as no part of carbo-hydrate seems to suggest etymologically anything about aldehydes or ketones. But then what are the differences between alcohols, sugar alcohols and carbohydrates?218.214.49.175 04:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. a lot of the bit about nutrition seems really quite bad and the claims really need to cited if not removed i think. That section needs a serious review. "and thus it could be considered advisable" ahem ahem and this is relevant why? this is not meant to be an essay on why people should stop eating carbs and veges. I think it's inadvisable for you to advise people what not to eat without something to back it up.218.214.49.175 04:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• The article must' start with a definition. "Carbohydrates are the most abundant of the four major classes of biomolecules." is not a definition. "Carbohydrates are simple organic compounds that are aldehydes or ketones with many hydroxyl groups added, usually one on each carbon atom that is not part of the aldehyde or ketone functional group." is vague and sounds more like a statistical fact (?) observed in some contexts than a definition. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

help plz

can any one give any easily understandable info on this subject, because whats given is a little hard to understand......Thanks!!! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.131.96 (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, who are we talking to for a start? If you know nothing about biology it will probably require a bit more effort. Richard001 07:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was simply looking for information on Carbs and how to eat healthy, didn't know I need to do a degree in Biology to try and eat healthy. Silly me ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.46.4 (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article as it's currently written is mostly a description what what carbohydrates are. As for their nutritional aspects, there is a Carbohydrate#Nutrition section that doesn't required you know the biochemistry. That part, however, needs some work. – ClockworkSoul 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, just what i was looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.46.4 (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A good understandable article on carbohydrates in nutrition is written by Ron Kennedy, M.D. of Santa Rosa, CA. You can read it here *Carbohydrates in Nutrition

Formaldehyde

is formaldehyde(CH2O) a carb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.1.167 (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, use Ctrl + F and you'll see this is mentioned in the lead. Richard001 08:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Presently (nov 2009) here is no mention of formaldehyde in the article. Yet apparently if was often considered "the simplest carbohydrate" in the past, e.g.

• "A Textbook of Botany for Colleges and Universities" By John Merle Coulter, Charler Reid Barnes, Henry Chandler Cowles (1930)

while others claimed that title for gycol aldehyde:

• "Tietz fundamentals of clinical chemistry", By Carl A. Burtis, Edward R. Ashwood, Norbert W. Tietz (2000)

The article needs a proper definition (or definitions, if there is no agreement). All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Very Akward Pictures.

I would much appreciate if someone attached the traditional Hexagon representation of Hexoses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nassimo (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added an animation showing the interconversion. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice animation. I would like to discourage the use of more archaic Haworth projections (flat hexagons) in preference to more modern 3D projections (like the lactose image and the anomeric image in this article). The 3D projection conveys a more accurate conformational picture (that of a ⁴C₁ or ¹C₄ chair forms etc.) Also, the stereochemistry of the amylose polymer was incorrect; the 4 position had a galactose configuration and the linkage was beta; should be alpha-1-4 glucose. Images updated. --Glycoform (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Use in living organisms

Mentions glycerol in liver; should not this be glycogen? As mentioned under "Oligosaccharides and polysaccharides". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.167.169.16 (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Turning into Fat

Is the statement "Unused carbohydrates are turned into fat" in the diet section a bit misleading? Aren't all unused calories (from fat, protein or carbohydrates) turned into fat? I suggest adding "like unused protein and fat" in the middle for clarity.--Zachbe (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Biocarbohydrate

Biocarbohydrates are carbohydrates from the biomass, instead from fossil fuels (petroleum). --Mac (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you thinking of hydrocarbons? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't think you can get carbohydrates from fossil fuels; this seems like a nonsense word. It would be equivalent to 'bioprotein' - do they come from another source? --Glycoform (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested splitting

I'd like to suggest splitting the Metabolism off into Carbohydrate metabolism due to its being redundant within this article. Delete that stub of a section and add Carbohydrate metabolism to See Also.Pstanton 02:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Carbohydrate Chemistry

I concur with the suggested splitting of the Metabolism section; as well, I think the carbohydrate chemistry section should be split out to allow for a more detailed section. I've already started a new page for carbohydrate chemistry for this which will need to bring together some other pages as well (anomeric effect, glycosidic bond etc.) The synthetic chemistry associated with these structures is essentially a sub-discipline which has a lot of subtleties. Additionally, this article seems to be focused only on the nutritional/metabolic roles of carbohydrates, missing are the roles of these molecules in protein-protein and cell-cell recognition. Some of this is covered in glycobiology but some additional mention of this role (or a split - say Carbohydrate - Nutrition & metabolism; Carbohydrate - Glycobiology) could be called for. --Glycoform (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's really rather sad

That I can ask an otherwise legitimate question on a talk page like this, but because one person does not like the way I phrased it, it is suddenly "vandalism" and deleted completely. If anything, you could say I was rude in the way I asked my question, but as far as I can tell, vandalism = intentionally disruptive edits, and, more importantly, edits to actual articles. These talk pages are intended to talk, are they not? The standards of writing something in an encyclopedic manner do not apply here.

At least from my understanding.

But even if they do, assuming that my post was solely created as a vandalism, when I was asking an otherwise legitimate question, is completely unnecessary. Or are those policies such as "WP:Assume Good Faith" or whatever all for show after all? Seems very seldom that people actually do assume good faith around here. They're just as happy to tag anything they don't like as vandalism, even more so if the person posting it isn't a regular.

I dunno, just a few observations. I'll admit that I don't edit here often, so if I've somehow missed something that somehow changes the situation completely, feel free to let me know. 98.208.65.56 (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to this question, then it certainly reads less like you wanted an answer, and more like you wanted to vent. It's hard to assume good faith when the query opens with "why the fuck", after all. Also, in response to your followup question, I would point out that you weren't reverted by an admin. If you want a legitimate response (to anything in life, not just here in the 'pedia), you might get better results by being a little less belligerent. You know... flies, vinegar, honey, and all that. – ClockworkSoul 15:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Carbs as Energy

I'm not an expert, but in my biology class, I have learned that carbs are the primary source of energy. The body takes in food containing carbs, and then its enzymes break down more complex carbs into glucose. By cellular respiration, the body's cells' mitochondria convert it to ATP using water, oxygen, and other things that I cannot recall, in the Kreb cycle. According to what I've learned carbs are an important nutrient to the body. This article doesn't seem to talk much about this, and in my opinion it should. The reason I haven't done anything is because of my inexperience with the wiki format and because I cannot perform the kind of researching needed. Please tell me if you believe I am wrong. Thankya! --69.233.89.61 (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I found a good site that sorta backs up what I'm saying: http://www.berkeleywellness.com/html/fw/fwNut03Carbs.html . It's from the UC Berkeley website, which I'd think is pretty reliable, as you can probably tell. I think it might help this article, but I dunno how to put in this info. Can someone with more experience do it? Again, if you think I'm not helping, please tell me. Thankya! --69.233.89.61 (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"carbo-loading"

This section seems a bit specific for the summary section on carbohydrate in nutrition. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The notion of 'Carbo-loading' is a tried and tested method of many athletes preparing to run a twenty-six mile marathon. Consuming high quantities of Carbs has also been found to increase performance in weightlifting; Zimbabwean strongman Terry Chapendama was rumoured in the American Press to have eaten twenty three potatoes and three pizzas an hour before attempting the Flex magazine world record for shrugs and deadlifting. [2]

Carbohydrate RDI Discrepancy

The IOM chart for RDI cited in this article - and the article itself - say that 130g is the RDI for Carbs. Yet the nutritional information for every product I can find places that number at 290-300g, multiplying the percentage in each item by x to get 100%. Yogurt, Cheese, Beans, Juices - literally everything I checked. How do we explain this? (Pleave leave me a note on my user page if you have the answer to this) —Godheval^{T C H} 22:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have heard 310g, but also, official papers say it is impossible to tell as it depends on exercise and the person them self. However, I need the answer for a school assignment, so I will find it. (I was olligobber but forgot my password) --110.175.1.178 (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

link to low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet (LCKD)

Would that be usefull ? If so can someone make it?--SvenAERTS (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

disaccharides are not oligosaccharides or are they

The section on oligosaccharides states that oligosaccharides have from 3-10 monosaccharide units, but later list disaccharides as prominent examples. Stifynsemons (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Monosaccharides

I've just reverted a large addition on Monosaccharides by User:202.78.91.181. This addition looks to have been copied from somewhere else. I don't know the origin, but Yahoo Answers and Wisegeek.com seem to have the text. Kiore (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Classification (rate of glucose release)

I may be wrong but is this sentence from section "Classification" not wrong? "Some simple carbohydrates (e.g. fructose) are digested very slowly, while some complex carbohydrates (starches), especially if processed, raise blood sugar rapidly"

It was my undertsanding that simple carbs are digested faster and complex slower. This sentence seems to say the opposite. What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.yee17 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Check Glycemic index. Fruits, high in fructose, are low GI, while many foods high in starch, particularly processed foods like white bread and white rice, are high GI. It depends to a degree on the type of starch in the food, but the simple/complex dichotomy doesn't necessarily hold true. --jjron (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Values for m and n in the carbohydrates empyrcal formula

Dear Wikipedia contribuitors,

receive a kind geeting. Could you please add the range of possible values for m and n in the empyrical formula of carbohydrates?

Thanks in advance.George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction

Carbohydrate#Metabolism currently has one tag that says "This section requires expansion" and another tag that says "This section duplicates, in whole or part, the scope of other article(s) or section(s)". Um, well, these aren't these contradictory - if it's duplicating other material surely it doesn't need expansion, or if it needs expanding then it can't already be duplicating other material. Seems someone's not thinking about the tags they're using. --jjron (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow. Couldn't it be the case that it needs to be expanded, but with information that isn't already in another section/article? Zujua (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

carbohydrates

carbohydrates are of three types: 1-monosaccharides 2-disaccharides 3-polysaccharides they contain carbon,oxygenand hydrogen elements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.89.73.70 (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The introduction is WRONG. !!! Very.

A paraphrase of the IUPAC Definition (1996) of a generic carbohydrate is: "The term 'carbohydrate' includes monosaccharides, oligosaccharides and polysaccharides and includes compounds derived from monosaccharides by: → a) reduction of the carbonyl group (alditols), → b) by oxidation of one or more terminal groups to carboxylic acids, or → c) by replacement of one or more hydroxy group(s) by a hydrogen atom, an amino group, a thiol group or similar heteroatomic groups. It includes derivatives of these compounds. About 3% of the compounds listed by Chemical Abstracts Service ( > 360 000) are named using carbohydrate nomenclature. Note that Cyclitols are not generally regarded as carbohydrates." This DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS the lede. --- I will add that the first reference claims their formula is Cn(H2O)n and someone has changed that to the more general Cm(H2O)n and then SCREWED up the article by saying that m doesn't have to equal n. I suggest that this prototypical formula be "Cn(H2O)n' where usually n = n'." To emphasize the exception at the expense of the more useful general rule of thumb is worse than foolish.72.172.10.35 (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

In the example of lactose which is illustrated, m=12 and n=11, i.e., they are not equal. Lactose is not an atypical carbohydrate. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

hey there car — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.116.89 (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Is carbohydrate essential?

This report couldn't conclude either way: http://www.ajcn.org/content/75/5/951.2.full

These references call it essential:

• http://www.linksnorth.com/nutrition/nutrients.html
• http://web.nmsu.edu/~johtaylo/Nutrition1.htm
• http://www.unh.edu/health-services/ohep/pdf/GeneralNutrition/CarbohydrateIsAnEssentialNutrientFINAL.pdf
• http://health.asiaone.com/Health/Health%2BMatters/Story/A1Story20110523-280254.html
• Discovering nutrition, Timothy Carr, Timothy P. Carr. Page 8. "The six essential nutrient classes are carbohydrates, proteins, ..."

There are a bunch that say the opposite also. Basically, we shouldn't say definitively that carbs are not an essential nutrient if the references disagree so much. Sancho 19:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Or, at least we can make clearer the distinct meaning of "essential nutrient" that we're using here. In every-day usage, carbohydrates seem to be generally considered an essential nutrient. Sancho 19:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

None of these articles you quote are medical journals, just opinions and cheap talk. To anyone who wants to repair this article, links 10 and 11 are identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.76.92 (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this article suggests carbs are not necessary to our diets, when there is more studies/articles that suggest they should be part of our diets. The article is not only one sided, it's premise relies on a non-scientific 'opinion'. It needs to be revised to reflect mixed scientific opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Carbs include sugars (and specifically glucose), which are essential towards producing ATP, the bodies energy source. It is noted that tapping into fats for energy, increases the risk for Ketosis. It has been argued by other sources (not included in the article) that Carbs should be an essentially part of our diet. However, the article doesn't include anything that reflects that position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Then provide a source for this claim and add it to the article. (You might also create a user account.) I myself have not seen any scientific source for the claim that carbohydrates are essential for humans, and some that suggest they are not. Your claim that glucose is essential for ATP production is not true and even if true is irrelevant to this article. Many cells in the human body can feed fatty acids (and other nutrients) into the Krebs cycle (or other places in respiration) directly. Also, humans can create glucose endogenously from glycerol and some amino acids. If we are creating glucose in our bodies from other nutrients, it is, by definition, not essential.

I would like to see your sources for the claim that carbs are essential in the scientific meaning of that term.Michaplot (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean "risk for ketosis"? Who told you ketosis was a risk in generally healthy people? Ketoacidosis may be a risk for diabetics, but we're not all diabetics.

Donjoe (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Definition of carbohydrate as a macromolecule

Monosaccharides, disaccharides and trisaccharides are not defined as macromolecules, only polysaccharides such as starch, cellulose, pectin, alginate, chitin, etc are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.38.10 (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pros.20683/abstract
• http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/259633
• http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11745-008-3274-2
• http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/1998/04000/The_Effects_of_Carbohydrate_Restriction_in.23.aspx
• http://ard.bmj.com/content/59/7/539.short
• http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163782708000167
• http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/30/3/402.short
• http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/93/5/1048.short
• http://jn.nutrition.org/content/142/8/1510.short
• http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-8-75.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.193.88.221 (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 209.210.213.82 (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Audience

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. 192.151.178.180 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carbohydrate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060320002451/http://www.mdl.com/products/framework/chime/ to http://www.mdl.com/products/framework/chime/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect transliteration of Greek word

The transliteration of Greek into English via the Latin alphabet is wrong in this sentence in the second paragraph:

The word saccharide comes from the Greek word σάκχαρον (sákkharon), meaning "sugar".

According to Romanization_of_Greek#Ancient_Greek, the transliteration should be sáccharon, not sákkharon. The sákkharon transliteration may have been done by someone more familiar with transliterating Modern Greek, but this (like practically all Greek words in English) is based on Ancient Greek, not Modern Greek. In transliterating Ancient Greek, "κ" becomes "c", not "k"; and "χ" becomes "ch", not "kh". That's because "c" and "ch" are the Latin transliterations of "κ" and "χ", and English nearly always mimics Latin in this regard.

A second problem is the italicization of σάκχαρον in that sentence. MOS:BADITALICS says, "Text in non-Latin scripts (such as Greek, Cyrillic or Chinese) should neither be italicized as non-English nor bolded, even where this is technically feasible; the difference of script suffices to distinguish it on the page." So the sentence in this article actually should be:

The word saccharide comes from the Greek word σάκχαρον (sáccharon), meaning "sugar".

The correct transliteration has the added benefit of more clearly showing how "saccharide" came from the Greek word.

Since this article is locked, and I choose not to log in to edit, someone else will have to make this change. Thanks. —104.244.192.86 (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

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 $C_{5}O_{4}H_{10}$ 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 $C_{5}O_{5}H_{10}$. 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.

Any one please answer me. Can someone send me the correct sequence of the whole topic "Carbohydrates"? I'll be very thankful. Ihsan Hamza1 (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Correcting undue weight issue in "Nutrition" section

I have moved the potentially POV material on ketogenesis and other low-carb effects to a new subsection, entitled "Effects of dietary carbohydrate restriction" (suggested improvements to this title are welcomed). I also added a "See also:" link to the article on low-carbohydrate diets. I offer this rearrangement as a potential resolution of the undue weight issue noted at the top of the section.   — Texas Dervish (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2019

I feel silly submitting an edit request for this. :o) It's such a small change. Sorry to whoever ends up fielding this!

I wanted to edit the sentence "Low-carbohydrate diets are associated with increased mortality, but they may miss the health advantages ...", because it makes no sense. Either it should read "Low-carbohydrate diets are associated with increased mortality, and they may miss the health advantages ..." or it should read "Low-carbohydrate diets are associated with decreased mortality, but they may miss the health advantages ...".

For what it's worth, the main article suggests the matter is a bit complicated (decreased mortality for a plant-based low-carb diet, increased mortality for a meat-based low-carb diet), so it might be better to axe the mortality comment altogether and leave "Low-carbohydrate diets may miss the health advantages ...".

Thanks! pinkgothic (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Alexbrn (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2019

Carbohydrates provide fuel for the central nervous system and energy for working muscles. They also prevent protein from being used as an energy source and enable fat metabolism God of OC (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - the template states: "specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y", and be supported by a WP:SCIRS source. --Zefr (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No mention of Gluconeogenesis and the article is not at all neutral regarding nutritional recommendations

Carbohydrates are not essential nutritional compounds unlike protein and fat, through the process of Gluconeogenesis, the body is able to synthesize glucose from non-carbohydrate compounds. And yet it is noted on the wikipedia page that they are nutritionally essential and that the institute of medicine "recommends that American and Canadian adults get between 45 and 65% of dietary energy from whole-grain carbohydrates.".

These recommendations are biased and based solely on the appeal and profit of the government and companies that profit from the massive consumption of carbohydrates, while they are fundamentally not nutritionally essential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oggune (talk • contribs) 19:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It should now be mentioned in the see also section. Darubrub (Inform me) 23:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It is still not mentioned that Carbohydrates are not essential nutritional compounds unlike protein and fat... This is clearly stated in the German Wikipedia article. Darwipli (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BillDScienceGuy. Peer reviewers: BillDScienceGuy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Carbivore: someone that consumes large quantities of carbohydrates

Carbivore: some that consumes large quantities of carbohydrates Justinryan1 (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Carbohydrate

A carbohydrate (/ˌkɑːrboʊˈhaɪdreɪt/) is a biomolecule consisting of carbon (C), hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) atoms, usually with a hydrogen–oxygen atom ratio of 2:1 (as in water) and thus with the empirical formula Cm(H2O)n (where m may or may not be different from n). However, not all carbohydrates conform to this precise stoichiometric definition (e.g., uronic acids, deoxy-sugars such as fucose), nor are all chemicals that do conform to this definition automatically classified as carbohydrates (e.g. formaldehyde and acetic acid). 39.43.91.187 (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Biology

Carbohydrates 41.210.159.19 (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)