Talk:Sucrose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Boiling Point

It says the boiling point of sucrose is ".dec" what does that mean?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.85.89 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

It means it decomposes before it theoretically boils. 67.42.75.190 04:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cats

People, and in fact most other mammals except members of the cat family, will gladly accept a food sweetened with sucrose, even if they aren't hungry.

Does anyone know why cats are unique? Do they dislike the taste of sucrose, or do they only refuse sweetened food if they're not hungry? --Bkell 07:58, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This page says cats lack the enzymes to digest sucrose. ᚣᚷᚷᛞᚱᚫᛋᛁᛚ
faulty gene on a feline ancestor - search on Washington Post site. GraemeLeggett 15:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


In addition, the statement that most people/mammals will take sugar even when not hungry is nonsense. It has no factual basis at least as far as humans go. Someone remove/reword it

[edit] Erm...

My cat does... but I suppose that doesn't make for a good reference...


a local vet says that they simply don't taste it, or don't taste it very strongly: if they're going after something sweet it's probably because it has fat in it as well (i.e. melted ice cream). i guess if they don't have enzymes to break sugars down they don't need the taste receptors either. — Clarknova 18:53, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dude, Cats are just too smart, that's why. -Tim

Wrong-My cat ate a sugar solution! Scorpionman 17:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical name

Do you want to stick the other chemical name on?

[beta]-D-Fructofuranosyl [alpha]-D-glucopyranoside

Source: http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/2carb/app.html

Phil If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone — including you — can edit any article by clicking the edit this page tab at the top of the page. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. &#0xfeff; --fvw* 01:13, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical Formula

When I was researching Maltose ,Something struck me as odd about the chemical formula. I came over here and foud out what was wrong, the same fomula for this is repeated over there. So which is the right one?

The empirical formulas are the same. Note that the full names differ.GraemeLeggett 20:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... isn't that an alpha-alpha linkage in the picture?

[edit] health problems

Sucrose is composed of two simple sugars: fructose and glucose. Now, I can't count how many times I've heard the phrase "sugar is bad for you". What part of sucrose is bad: the fructose, or the glucose? Or both? Scorpionman 18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You're not thinking.. Glucose is a sugar, fructose is a sugar, sucrose is a sugar. Sugar is bad for you. 219.77.98.28 09:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] structure

Your structure is wrong - it shows D glucose and L-fructose - should be D-glucose and D-fructose. Good picture is available on commons. See the difference:

Wrong !
Wrong !
Good !
Good !
You are correct. I've fixed the mistake. (In the future, you're welcome to do it yourself.) Edgar181 21:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Should the "sucrose.png" be removed, and "saccharose.png" renamed, then? Or at least swop the names? I don't know how to do it. Remember to swop the names in this talk page if you do. 219.77.98.28 09:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sugar and cancer

I removed the statement, "Studies have also shown that tumors, especially cancers, consume most of the sugar people eat." There is a grain of truth there, in that many cancer cells take up glucose at a faster rate than the cells of surrounding tissues, making it possible to locate metastases by using PET scanning to detect concentrations of radioactively tagged glucose. That's entirely different, though, from saying that cancer consumes most of the sugar people eat, a statement that is self-evidently untrue for the vast majority of people who don't even have cancer. Since the true statement is really about glucose, not sucrose, and is far more relevant to articles about cancer and radiology than to one about sugar, I thought it better to omit the reference than to correct it. Paul Turner 16:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent link addition?

I am skeptical that "your cleansing source online" [1] is a reliable source to include in this article. I would like to see some references to medical journal articles about sugar "leeching nutrients from the body because it is so nutriet poor". Anyone care to give opinions? --Syrthiss 14:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a commercial site selling a colon cleansing program in which one receives supervision and instructions from someone calling himself Jos-hua Medicine Man. I took out the link and the information taken directly from it. Paul Turner 10:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
lol I hadn't seen that. Ok, good call on both our parts. :) --Syrthiss 13:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cats

Some users were saying above that cats can't taste sucrose. Well, I highly disagree. I made a saturated sugar solution, poured the incredibly thick syrup on the ground, and my cat saw it and started licking it up! Can anyone explain that? Scorpionman 02:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC) ur retarded if you think that just because you put some sugar water on the floor and your cat ate it means that they can taste anything. if you put just normal water on the floor the cat would eat it too.

[edit] Changed 'junk food' reference (NPOV)

I changed the sentence reading "As such it is common in many processed and junk foods" to "As such it is common in many processed and so-called "junk foods"." I feel this is slightly more neutral. Joeylawn 02:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Safety Diamonds

I think the safety diamonds have recently been updated for sucrose. The new bottle in the lab I work in is rated health-1, flamability-2, and reactivity-1. I wonder what they're thinking of when they say sucrose is a "slight" health risk? "Warning: may cause obesity if consumed in large amounts"? --AaronM 12:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does Sucrose contain fructose? Don't think so...

I am not a chemist, but I thought sucrose contains two glucose molecules, not one glucose and one fructose, as the article claims? Is this an error or am I mistaken? 24.20.118.3 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Dan

You're mistaken! See for instance http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/546sucrose.html
Ben 17:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, the disaccharide consisting of two dextrose (glucose) molecules is maltose. Groogle 01:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/c/Talk%7ESucrose_95b2.html"