/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11914495]

Why can we digest carbohydrates but not hydrocarbons?

[Anonymous No.11914921]

Well, /sci/?

[Anonymous No.11914936]

Can't say for sure but my guess is that we never evolved that ability because until recently we didn't have much access to refined hydrocarbons but have always had easy access to abundant carbohydrates.

[Anonymous No.11914941]

>>11914921
Welcome to the wonderful world of chiral molecules. See, "hydro" and "carbon" are ordered one way and they give our bodies energy. Order them the other way and they give our cars energy.

[Anonymous No.11915118]

machines can run on refined lard. we should unite the human and machine fuels. we should switch to a pig lard economy!

[Anonymous No.11915138]

>>11915118
Run our cars on hamburger

[Anonymous No.11915161]

>>11915118
fuck that, make humans able to eat gasoline instead

[Anonymous No.11915162]

>>11914941
Ignore this guy/gal, they are spouting out their ass. It has nothing to do with chirality.

Carbohydrates are carbon chains with a number hydrogens and hydroxides comparable to the number of carbons (if you ignored their structure and only looked at their elemental composition they look like hydrates of carbon, hence carbohydrates)

Hydrocarbons are carbon chains that are bonded to roughly twice as many hydrogen's as carbons.

We the answer to your question is that our bodies are built of 80% water and have evolved to exploit water soluble compounds. Most hydrocarbons are not water soluble. The ones that are (fats) we metabolize just fine.

[Anonymous No.11915173]

>>11914495
Btw is this a homework questions or were you actually interested?

[Anonymous No.11915211]

>>11914495
Op is dead

[Anonymous No.11915228]

>>11914495
carbon-carbon bonds are typically very strong, and hard to break. Sugars are special because they have a ton of oxygens on them - when two neighboring carbons are also bonded with oxygens, it becomes a lot easier to break the bonds between them using radical (single electron) reactions.

[Anonymous No.11915293]

>>11914495
I understand the premise of your question, but I will add that the definition of what a hydrocarbon is - so for all intents and purposes a carbohydrate is a hydrocarbon, it fact glucose is just an analog of cyclohexane. Oils, too, are hydrocarbons and we can digest them. However, I feel when you say hydrocarbon* you are referring to basic straight-chain alkanes that may or may not be liquid at room temperature, I believe the answer lies with the fact that our body does not provide the enzymes required for the metabolic breakdown of these substances. If you consider the body an environment, the enviroment does not provide the specific conditions required for the breakdown of these molecules. All in all, we can some hydrocarbons can be broken down in the body - however, some can not - this is because the energy required to break the bonds of these basic hydrocarbons* far exceeds the bodies capacity.

*For consistency, when you say hydrocarbon are you referring to liquid hydrocarbons like pentane, hexane, etc.? If it is the case keep in mind too that these substances in of themselves can result in adverse biological effects.

[Anonymous No.11915609]

>>11915293
>a carbohydrate is a hydrocarbon
hydrocarbons are defined as only containing H and C

[Anonymous No.11915619]

>>11915609
Are you OP?

[Anonymous No.11915718]

>>11915173
What course would likely have this question as homework?

[Anonymous No.11915808]

>>11915718
Bio Chemistry II if you're a chemistry student or Advanced Molecular Biology if your a biology student.

It's a good essay question because it requires the student to pull on and sythithize information from several of they're prerequisites with the current course.

[Anonymous No.11915819]

>>11915609
Not this anon >>11915293, (to be clear they are wrong) but what would you classify phenol as? How about pyrol? How high does the ratio of hetero atoms need to be before you'd exclude molecules as hydrocarbons?

[Anonymous No.11915830]

>>11915228
Check out the beta oxidation cycle. It's breaking C-C bonds all day

[Anonymous No.11917054]

>>11915830
I'm surprised there isn't a named reaction like that. Reminds me of the knoevangel condensation - but instead of decarboxylation, it goes through a tetrahedral hemi-thioacetal intermediate
Mechanically, what's the protein doing? Does it have to physically pull the bond apart? Or is it labile enough to separate spontaneously?

Why are so many of these cool reactions so poorly understood

[Anonymous No.11917204]

>>11914495
>he can't drink crude oil
I fucking hate nu-males.

[Anonymous No.11918157]

>>11917204
To be fair, he could drink it, he just wouldn't survive

[Anonymous No.11918202]

>>11914495
Fatty acids are hydrocarbons with a carboxyl group attached to them for better handling.

[Anonymous No.11919210]

Why do you niggas like Apu so much?

[Anonymous No.11919216]

>>11919210