Does Breaking Chemical Bonds Produce Energy in Catabolism?

In summary: The energy necessary to break a chemical bond is called the activation energy. Activation energy is the energy required to break the chemical bond from the ground state (most stable) to the first excited state."So in summary, breaking a chemical bond requires energy.
  • #1
STAii
333
1
Greetings.
Recently, my Biology teacher was explaining about metabolism (unlike my other teachers, this one is a good teacher).
He said : "catabolism produces energy on the form of ATP because it involves breaking chemical bonds".
Now i feel a little confused about this.
As far as i know, chemical bonds are there due to force(s) between atoms, and when you want to break a bond, you are taking the atoms apart from each other, in other words the direction of movement of each atom is in the opposite direction of the bonding force. From physics we would conclude that this (breaking the bonds) need energy and does not produce energy.
Still, it is obvious that Catabolism produces energy, which makes the confusion for me.

I tried to find a way out of this confusion, and this is what i reached :
-To break the chemical bond, you actually need energy (only a confirmation to my previous conclusion)
-When the certain bonds gets broken in the chemical compounds, new bonds will be formed (but not the same original bond)
-In catabolism, the energy of the new bond (= the energy needed to break the new bond) must be more than the energy of the original bond, this way the difference of energies will make the whole process energy producive.

Am i right or wrong ? If i am wrong please tell me how breaking bonds produces energy.
Thanks in advance.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
You are wrong. Breaking a bond releases energy. It also takes energy to make a bond. Confused?

Consider sugar. Plants take energy from the sun. They use it to make carbohydrates, bonding CO2 and water together. When we eat sugar, we break those bonds, releasing CO2 and H2O and energy. What do we do with the energy? We make a bond between ADP and inorganic phosphate. Then, when we're done eating and need energy again, we break the ATP back down again and we've got the energy back.

Think of it as chemical potential energy. Sure, you never get the same amount of energy back, due to entropy, but since it al starts with the sun, we don't have to worry.
 
  • #3
Great.

But how would you explain that even though the bonding force is doing work against the movement of the atoms when breaking a bond, it will still release energy ?
 
  • #4
Originally posted by STAii
Great.

But how would you explain that even though the bonding force is doing work against the movement of the atoms when breaking a bond, it will still release energy ?

Consider a bond as a spring, vibrating very fast. Now cut the string, and the masses will go flying apart from each other, creating "useful work". It's not really the masses flying apart that does the work, but the heat released, or a redox reaction, or some other such thing. But you can still think of it as storing potential energy in a spring to be used later by breaking said string.
 
  • #5
Originally posted by STAii
Greetings.
(snip)I tried to find a way out of this confusion, and this is what i reached :
-To break the chemical bond, you actually need energy (only a confirmation to my previous conclusion)
-When the certain bonds gets broken in the chemical compounds, new bonds will be formed (but not the same original bond)
-In catabolism, the energy of the new bond (= the energy needed to break the new bond) must be more than the energy of the original bond, this way the difference of energies will make the whole process energy producive.

Am i right or wrong ?


You are absolutely correct in your understanding and analysis of bond energies vs. REACTION energies. What you've run into is A difference (one of many) in the ways people in different scientific fields use same/similar words in different ways --- for the life of me, I don't know whether it's a deliberate technique to confuse the rest of the world, or not, but it is the way things have been for a long time.
If i am wrong please tell me how breaking bonds produces energy.

Again, you have stated a very good understanding --- energy HAS to be put into a bond to break it --- net energy release for a reaction is gained as a result of a subsequent bond formation process.[/QUOTE]

Thanks in advance.
[/QUOTE]

Just bite your tongue in class, and learn your instructor's definitions for "bond, reaction, and energy."
 
  • #6
Now we have contradiction !
I started a search on the internet, i found some sites that stated that energy is needed to break a chemical bond, and other stating that chemical bonds are a shape of potential energy.
Eventually, i remembered that that wolfram research have a chemistry Encyclopedia, and i thought that most people on the forums would trust wolfram (The makers of Mathematica).
I found Bond energy and Dissociation energy which both suggest that energy is released when chemical bonds are formed.

A third opinion would be appreciated.
Thanks.
 
  • #7
Ask CSF what he means when he says "cut;" I'd call it "adding" energy.
 
  • #8
Originally posted by Bystander
Ask CSF what he means when he says "cut;" I'd call it "adding" energy.

It takes energy to cut a string, it takes energy to break a bond. If you cut a string you use scisssors, in biology you typically use a conformational change of an enzyme.

Consider ATP as a boulder on a steep hill. It takes a lot of energy to get the boulder up the hill (making ATP from ADP). Now the hydrolysis of ATP is highly exothermic, it releases a lot of energy rolling down the hill. Now ATP is what they call metastable. It can just roll down the hill by itself, but the odds of that happening are small, practically for the organism. An enzyme comes along and nudges the boulder. It takes energy to move the boulder, the free energy of activation, is much smaller than the energy produced.
 
  • #9
So basically you put in a little bit of energy just enough to 'push it over the edge' after which you gain more than you've put in.
 
  • #10
Originally posted by Monique
So basically you put in a little bit of energy just enough to 'push it over the edge' after which you gain more than you've put in.

You gained more energy than it took to give it the nudge yes. But at some point in the past somebody had to push the boulder up the hill. So energy is still conserved.
 
  • #11


Originally posted by Bystander
Just bite your tongue in class, and learn your instructor's definitions for "bond, reaction, and energy."

Sorry for the slightly off topic post, but I couldn't let this one slide:
I'd recommend against biting your tongue. If you ever don't understand or think the teacher is wrong etc, then I think you should be as vocal about it as possible until you are shown explicitly why you should accept what they are telling you.

I am not sure whether it is better to perhaps wait until after class and ask in private so you don't interrupt the class (the indoctrination of 'knowledge' to the mindless mass)m or whether you should interrupt the class and ask hard questions, thereby perhaps causing other people to maybe think a little. Its a hard call, but whatever the answer, don't stop yourself from thinking about these things, and if something doesn't fit, say so.

Good work.
 
  • #12


Originally posted by Another God
Sorry for the slightly off topic post, but I couldn't let this one slide:
I'd recommend against biting your tongue. If you ever don't understand

Never be silent when you do NOT understand.

or think the teacher is wrong etc, then I think you should be as vocal about it as possible until you are shown explicitly why you should accept what they are telling you.

Things may be different in Oz or in Jordan --- in the U.S. this is an excellent way to pick up a reputation as a troublemaker, smarta**, or get involved in a power struggle for control of a classroom --- rocks the boat. It's a "user's" call whether the instructor is open to correction/dialogue on topics, but, as a rule, not worth it --- hence, the advice (paraphrased) to learn what IS useful material presented in the classroom, sorting out the errors/chaff, and to also reply in the instructor's terms (errors and chaff) when interrogated.

STAii is a sharp kid, and has been since he(?) showed up on these forums --- very pointed questions, not a lot of tangents, and the analytical skills to take HS level text/classroom presentations and see the holes that have been left in the arguments/developments of topics that interest him. Then he brings the questions here --- he's alluded once or twice to "conservative" approaches to teacher-pupil relationships, and that was what I had in mind when I suggested that he "bite his tongue" regarding the classroom line about "breaking bonds...release of energy."

The kid's got the idea beautifully in hand ATP plus water vs. ADP plus phosphoric acid, break two bonds, make two bonds, and the energy of the reaction is the difference between the sums of the bond energies of reactants and products --- the bond energies are all attractive (release of energy on formation). He DOESN'T need to straighten out the misconceptions of everyone on the planet while he's still in HS(? No offense intended if I've misunderstood the point you've reached in your education, STAii). He's got much better things to do with his mind, and appears to be doing a damned good job of it without taking off on Quixotic quests against public education windmills. It IS really his call, and judgment, whether to initiate dialogues with instructors on the points he is continually finding and raising in these forums.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Thanks all for your replies.
Let me put you into the picture.

About 7 years ago, 8 of the best teachers in Jordan (in different subjects) decided to start a project (to make more money i guess), that project was a school.
When that school was built, they started to teach in it, and they hired other teachers too, they decided to teach the year 12 students (or so called Tawjihi in Jordan). But they were tricky, they decided to give scholarships for the best students in other schools to come and study for free in their school, and (of course), students were happy, since those 8 teachers were well-known.
So, since they had the best students in their school, the best results of Tawjihi came from their school, and the school became famous. All people now wanted their children to study there, althought (as a student in that school) i can tell you it is not as good as it seems.
Now (7 years later), this school is almost the biggest in Jordan (about 8000 students), and each year at least 3 of the 10 best-ranked students in Tawjihi (the year 12 exam) are from this school, and normally the first is one of those 3.
Those teachers that originally founded it now think they are too good to do errors, they think they are some kind of the Gods-of-Tawjihi, and that they shouldn't and won't do any mistakes, and that they know everything.
This is more like something they believe in (well most of them), and not something they can give up easily.
Therefore, none of them accepts to be corrected, they don't accept any questions that are not included in the original textbook, and they can't admit being wrong.

I have lot of examples:
-I once asked my chem. teacher (while he was explaining about the continuous spectrum (sp?)) why the spectrum of a heated iron needle would be continuous (which is something he said), instead of answering me he started to ask me. He asked me "Why is the spectrum of the sun continuous", i answered what i believe was the right answer, and he started to ask and ask, and eventually, he didn't answer my original question.
-The math teacher once was solving a limit problem (2 days ago), his answer was clearly wrong, i told him so, and tried to explain why, i was able to write 3 ways of prooving his answer was wrong, but he refused to listen to me. The next day he came saying that his answer was "inaccurate" (althought it was wrong, and not innacurate), and he said the reason was that his way of solving the question was too hard for the students (i wonder how this is related to the whole thing, he was solving the question alone, he could have chosen the way he wanted !).
-My physics teacher once threatened me of "cutting my tongue" if i didn't stop asking questions. And once, when i asked him a question privately, instead of answering me he said (ironically) "Your ideas are good, i hope they will be useful for you in the Tawjihi exam", like and indirect way of saying that he expects a bad result from me in the exam. I still wonder, if i was asking him, why did he talk about my ideas ? It was not an idea, it was a question !

Anyway, those are just some examples, the point is that the way my environment currently is, talking would only get me into more and more trouble, althought i personally think (in normal conditions) that the person should talk when he sees something wrong.

Now back to the topic
Knowing that my biology teacher wouldn't admit being wrong, i headed to my chemistry teacher.
I asked him the question (in a main way, without showing its relation to metabolism), and he confirmed that energy would be needed to break a bond, and released when breaking a bond. Agreeing with the definitions from Wolfram.

Chemicalsuperfreak
Your idea seems cool, It is true that cutting the string in your analogy will (in most of times) release more energy than needed to cut the string. But still, can you show how you reached the analogy between the string and the chemical bond, how are they alike ?

Another God and Bystander
Thanks for your care :smile:. I think i will not have a main idea of either trying to correct the teacher or not, i think the best is to look at each situation as a separate case, sometimes i would be better to try to correct the teacher, and maybe sometimes it would just be worst (and a waste of time), althought i mainly think (as i said before) that correcting someone wrong is a good thing.

Btw Bystander, i am a male. and :
Things may be different in Oz or in Jordan --- in the U.S. this is an excellent way to pick up a reputation as a troublemaker, smarta**, or get involved in a power struggle for control of a classroom ---
Well, it is the same in Jordan

Thanks all. I guess i will have more questions coming with time.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
STAii-
Thanks for sketching your situation for us --- I don't know that it will improve the quality of any help we offer, but it gives us a context in which to understand the questions you bring to the forums.

Sounds like you don't need advice from us on how to conduct yourself in class --- you're doing fine.
 
  • #15
Trying to answer

Ok from what I am trying to follow, you're thinking that catabolism would take energy instead of making energy.

From what i can remember about my biology lessons, consider aerobic respiration for an example. The cells break down glucose into ATP but require ADP + P to break the glucose into 2 pyruvates etc. (boring biology bit) until all the ATP is produced. For every 1 ATP used up, 18 more are produced so yes catabolism requires energy, but the yield of produced energy is far greater
 
  • #16
I think you misunderstood me, i did not think that catabolism would take energy instead of making it.
The only thing i was arguing about is the mechanism in which energy is made during catabolism.
:smile:
Anyway, everything is clear for me now.
 
  • #17
Originally posted by STAii
Th

Chemicalsuperfreak
Your idea seems cool, It is true that cutting the string in your analogy will (in most of times) release more energy than needed to cut the string. But still, can you show how you reached the analogy between the string and the chemical bond, how are they alike ?
.

Actually, my favorite analogy for a chemical bond is two masses attached by a spring. It obeys simple harmonic motion and has a quantum mechanical equivalent of Hooke's law. There is a spring constant, a reduced mass, etc. This becomes very important in IR spectroscopy.
 
  • #18
different viewpoint

Staii, although you said you get the idea, I would just like to point out the role of ENZYMES in making these catalytic processes feasable.

First one needs to understand two properties of enzymes:
1. although an enzyme (a catalyst) participates in a reaction process, it stays UNCHANGED by it
2. catalysts only change RATES of processes, they do not change the direction of equilibrium

Now, I hope the following applies sufficiently to your question about breaking bonds.. otherwise it might be a good lesson by itself :)

So let’s think in energy diagrams, a simplified catabolic reaction would start out in the initial state (reactants) at a HIGH FREE ENERGY (Ga) and the final state (products) at a LOWER FREE ENERGY (Gb). Obviously, such a reaction would occur automatically.

But there is an intermediate state where there is a free energy barrier, energetic bonds need to be broken or conformations need to be changed – the concept of a TRANSITION STATE in the reaction. So here is the hill that chemicalsuperfreak was talking about.

Now, a molecule can enter such a transistion state for instance by an energetic collision, once it is activated to the transition state, it can go either side of the barrier.

Now, what a catalyst does is lower the energy barrier in a reaction, thus increasing the fraction of molecules that have enough energy to enter the transition state and make the reaction go faster. The equilibrium has not changed though! But if the concentration of the substrate is increased slightly, the reaction will tip.

And how enzymes can do this feat, I know two models:

LOCK AND KEY, where the reactant is brought together on the surface of the enzyme which fits nicely or the INDUCED FIT MODEL, where both enzyme and substrate are distorted upon binding, forcing it into the transition state. Once the substrate molecules have reacted, the enzyme will again change its conformation and bind new molecules.

The enzyme Catalase, for instance, increases the uncatalyzed rate of H2O2 decomposition by about 1 billion-fold, without undergoing change itself.
 
  • #19
Actually, the energy diagram exactly expresses my idea.
I am assuming you are talking about the energy diagram of the potential energy of molecules/atoms in the reaction.
As it is obvious from the diagram, starting the reaction needs energy (i think this is something all the repliers agreed on), and starting the reaction is actually breaking (some of) the bonds in the reactants.
What i was arguing about from the beginning is whether or not breaking those bonds is actually the source of energy in catabolism.
When the bonds are broken, we will actually be in the transition state (since it will be the highest point of potential energy), note that so far we needed energy.
After the transition state the products start to form, now if the potential energy of the products is lower then the potential energy of the reactants, the whole process (=the reaction) will produce energy (therefore we conclude that in catabolism the potential energy of the products is lower than the potential energy of the reactants (as Monique said) since the reaction produces energy).
Still, if the potential energy of the products is higher than the potential energy of the reactants, the whole process (=the reaction) will need energy (something not related to catabolism).
Note that in both cases, the original bonds were broken.
So, i conclude, that breaking the bonds does not produce energy, making them again is what produces the energy.

Now, about enzymes, i understand enzymes will make the energy in the transition state lower, but will not change the (potential) energy of the reactants nor the products, therefore a reaction that needs energy will still need energy whether or not there was an enzyme, and a reaction that produces energy will still produce energy (the same amount actually) whether or not there is an enzyme. So i guess my topic is a little more about chemistry than biology.

My topic was only to know if i was right that the energy is produced while making the products of the reaction (iow, after the transition state) or before it.

Thanks.
 
  • #20
So, i conclude, that breaking the bonds does not produce energy, making them again is what produces the energy.
I’d have to disagree.

First I would have to say though, that energy is not produced or made, only converted. Normally the energy of breaking a bond would dissipate in heat..

the cell utilizes this potential (free) energy by capturing it by coupling the release of free energy “-dG” (mainly heat) to an energetically unfavorable reaction (such as the formation of ATP out of ADP) so that it can be used at a later point in anabolism. Energy is lost in this system, not gained!

So I’d have to conclude that breaking bonds DOES release energy.. making them again DOES NOT produce energy. The point here IS that the energy type created in the second step is more usefull for the cell than the energy that was available in the first step.

Just simply look at nuclear fission.. the amount of energy released by breaking bonds is very clearly demonstrated by the tremendous amount of heat that is released.
 
  • #21
When i said breaking bonds does not produce energy, it didn't mean that catabolism does not produce energy.
As we all know, any reaction starts by breaking a bond, then forming new bonds (that is, both steps happen in the same reaction).
Let me give you an example :
Cl2 + H2 --> 2HCl
If you examine how this reaction happened, you will see that, at first the bond between the 2 H atoms in H2 broke, and the bond between the 2 Cl atoms in Cl2 broke.
So, at this state, we had more like a mix of 2 not-attached H atoms, and 2 not-attached Cl atoms. Note that so far the process needed energy, and now we are at the transition state on the energy diagram (a point with a very high potential energy, therefore, a lower heat energy).
From this point, the non-attached H atoms will react with the non-attached Cl atoms, forming (2)HCl.
Here, if the potential energy of the bond 2H-Cl is lower then the potential energy of the bond both the bonds 2H-H and 2Cl-Cl, then the reaction produces energy.
This will be seen on the energy diagram as the line at Gb being lower than Ga, therefore giving the information to the person looking at the diagram that this reaction produces energy.
On the other hand, if the potential energy of 2H-Cl is higher then the potential energy of the bond of both 2H-H and 2Cl-Cl, then the reaction needs energy.
This will be seen on the energy diagram as the line at Gb being higher than the line at Ga, therefore giving the examiner the information that this reaction needs energy.
From this point, i see that the energy was release (=converted to any other form than potential) after the transition state, or in other words, when forming new bonds.
But still, let me show it in other ways.
Let's take it a little bit more in physics.
The group of H2 and Cl2 atoms is a conservative system.
At first, we provided this system with a certain amount of energy, which equals the Dissociation energy, let's say that at this point, the reaction started.
If we isolate the system, from this point on, no energy will be gained or lost in the system.
So, in other words, the sum up of all energy forms in the system after this point will be constant.
PE + Eother forms = K
Eother forms=K-PE
Try to graph the graph of Eother forms, no matter what K is(but obviously, it must be at least equal to PE at the transition state), you will still get a graph with the following charachteristics :
It starts at a certain point (K-Ga), it then goes down till the lowest point (Transition state), it then goes up again till a certain point (K-Gb).
In the reaction i used as an example (the HCL reaction), it will be really likely that the change in Eother forms would actually be a change in heat.
From the new graph, you can see that the reaction needed energy at first (all forms of energy other than PE went down), this is when the bonds were being broken. And then, the reaction started to produce energy (all forms of energy other than PE went up), and this is when the bonds were being formed.
And still, our conclusion about the PE diagram holds, if Gb is lower than Ga, (K-Gb) will be higher than (K-Ga), therefore the reaction will produce energy (and the opposite is right too).

Thus my conclusion that : "(in a single reaction) breaking the bonds needs energy while making them re-produces energy".

If you still see that my conclusion is wrong, please point out where is the error in my logic, i would really appreciate it.

Thank you very much for your time.
 
  • #22
No, you are assuming that the transition state is when all the bonds are broken. This is simply incorrect. In this kind of case, where the reaction is highly exothermic the transition state more likely resembles H2 or Cl2 bonds getting stretched to near their breaking point. It may help to look up Hammond's postulate:

G.S. Hammond, J. Am. Chem. Soc. vol. 77:334, (1955)
 
  • #23
When i said breaking bonds does not produce energy, it didn't mean that catabolism does not produce energy.
That is also not what I was implying :) I just don’t quite get the concept of how you think of energy

"(in a single reaction) breaking the bonds needs energy while making them re-produces energy".
As chemicalsuperfreak pointed out, bonds are not broken and remade, it is rather a continues flow of energy which gets converted from one type to the other. The system needs to be stressed by the input of energy, after which the system will go to a more stable, energetically lower state. The bonding energy is transferred from one molecule to the other, since the dG is negative there will be the release of energy in the form of photons or motion or other.

At first, we provided this system with a certain amount of energy, which equals the Dissociation energy, let's say that at this point, the reaction started.
If we isolate the system, from this point on, no energy will be gained or lost in the system.
You mean from the point of the transistion state? As I said, since the dG is negative energy is lost from the system! Energy is lost, not gained.

It sound to me like you are saying that energy is produced when the bonds are being formed of the product. *edit* .. maybe you are right if you mean that the free energy not used in the formation of the new bonds is released out of the system.
 
  • #24
Chemicalsuperfreak,
If two state, as for example a transition state and an unstable intermediate, occur consecutively during a reaction process and have nearly the same energy content, their interconversion will only involve a small reorganisation of molecular structure (Hammond, G.S. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1955, 77, 334).
How is this related ?

Monique,
I can't understand you anymore, at first, you tell me that energy is released when the bonds are broken, then, you tell me that bonds are not even broken ?
Now, if bonds are not broken and are only re-arranged, then there is no problem, since we both agree that the whole reaction will eventually produce energy, so the answer would be that the re-arrangment or bonds released energy.
I just don’t quite get the concept of how you think of energy
I don't quite understand what you mean by that.
You mean from the point of the transistion state?
NOO ! i mean just after you put the Dissociation energy into the system.
And when i said that at this point the system will not loose or gain energy, i meant the total energy, conservation of energy.

Now, think with me in this way (again), all kinds of chemical bonds are due to some kind of force between the bonded atoms/molecules, breaking a bond is seperating the atoms/molecules, so the movement will be in the opposite direction of the force, which needs energy.

I know that you must think by now that i am just arguing, and i am annoying or sth, but i really want to know the truth, and i will be thinkfull to anyone that helps me.
 
  • #25
Originally posted by STAii
Chemicalsuperfreak,

How is this related ?


Now, think with me in this way (again), all kinds of chemical bonds are due to some kind of force between the bonded atoms/molecules, breaking a bond is seperating the atoms/molecules, so the movement will be in the opposite direction of the force, which needs energy.

I know that you must think by now that i am just arguing, and i am annoying or sth, but i really want to know the truth, and i will be thinkfull to anyone that helps me.

In your previous post you thought that the high point, the transition state for the reaction of H2 and Cl2 was where both bonds are broken and the atoms seperated. This is not what the transition state looks like. Hammond's postulate, if you pull the original paper, is a handy tool for theorizing what the t.s. does look like. And in this case it's the springs getting stretch to their breaking point. Now if you'll look at that energy diagram again, the energies of the bonds of Cl2 and H2 are higher than 2 HCl, that 's why it's exothermic, we agree on that. Enthalpy is a state function, it doesn't matter what the transition state is, the energies on the left and right stay the same. If you rip chlorine and hydrogen apart, separate the atoms, and stick them together as HCl, you'll never consume the amount of energy it created by breaking the bonds as you will making the new bonds. The left is always higher than the right, they're higher energy bonds.

Chemical bonds are not some force that always pulls atoms together. If the atoms get far apart, they will attract, if they get to close, they will repel, exactly like a spring. It takes energy to break a bond, it also takes energy to make a bond. This says nothing about how much energy is released when the bond is broken. Just like the force keeping the boulder on the cliff has nothing to say about how much energy is released when the boulder falls off.

I'm not sure what the hang up is.
 
  • #26
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
If the atoms get far apart, they will attract, if they get to close, they will repel, exactly like a spring. It takes energy to break a bond, it also takes energy to make a bond. This says nothing about how much energy is released when the bond is broken. Just like the force keeping the boulder on the cliff has nothing to say about how much energy is released when the boulder falls off.

I have been reading this thread, but excuse me if I am bringing us back to something that has been covered and I just forgot it, because I am going to do it simply because I don't think this has been made explicit.

Instead of trying to abstractly talk about energy required to break and energy made in breaking etc, how about we take the conversation down a level to exactly what it is that a bond is? Will this help?

What CSF has just said is getting there, but does it help if we starting thinking of bond energies in light of a bond being shared electrons? (Covalent bonds anyway, since they are the types of bonds broken/made in metabolic pathways.)

Bonds have always been explained to me, as electrons being shared between two atoms so that each atom has its valence shells filled by the shared atoms... Beyond this, the technicality of it has never really been explained to me, so perhaps CSF, you could explain to me how it is that such a thing is related to energy? If we understand how valence fulfillment is energy related, perhaps we can see how unsharing electrons etc can affect energy.

I am actually having a lot of trouble myself seeing how all of this relates to energy release/intake. This is a great question STAii, and no, I at least certainly do not think you are being annoying. Even once we understand the energy relation between valence electron sharing states, I am still unable to figure out how that energy is coupled into a useful form... To say that ATP is a high energy molecule doesn't explain to me how that energy that it contains is tranformed into...motion, or...breaking other bonds...or anything like that. Its all very strange. (obviously, simply because we don't yet understand it.)

I look forward to having it all not seem very strange
 
  • #27
No AG, I think you have a very good point.. that is also what I had in my mind although I didn't say it explicitly.

Staii, it is good that you won't let go until the answer is fully laid out.
 

1. What is metabolism?

Metabolism is the biochemical process by which the body converts food and drinks into energy. It is a series of chemical reactions that occur in living organisms to maintain life.

2. How does metabolism work?

Metabolism is driven by enzymes, which are proteins that act as catalysts to speed up chemical reactions in the body. These enzymes break down larger molecules into smaller ones, releasing energy that is used by the body to carry out its functions.

3. What are chemical bonds?

Chemical bonds are the attractive forces that hold atoms together in a molecule. These bonds are formed when two or more atoms share or exchange electrons to achieve a stable outer electron shell.

4. How do chemical bonds affect metabolism?

Chemical bonds play a crucial role in metabolism as they determine the structure and stability of molecules involved in metabolic reactions. The strength and type of chemical bonds in a molecule can affect the rate at which it is broken down or synthesized by enzymes.

5. How do different types of chemical bonds contribute to metabolism?

The two main types of chemical bonds involved in metabolism are covalent and ionic bonds. Covalent bonds are strong and require a lot of energy to break, making them important in storing energy for later use. Ionic bonds are weaker and can be easily broken, allowing for quick energy release in metabolic reactions.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
8
Views
385
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
5
Views
916
  • Biology and Chemistry Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
969
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
489
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
26
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top