Talk:Respiratory quotient

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Pulmonology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Low-importance). Scuba diving Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Scuba divingWikipedia:WikiProject Scuba divingTemplate:WikiProject Scuba divingSCUBA articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

With the resolution of the uncited source, does anyone see a reason that the banner at the top of the page for additional citations should not be removed? --Cwelsh3 (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. The article has been massively improved since May 2011 with a lot of substantial references added. So I removed the banner. --J.Ammon (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering deleting the sentence detailing how a respiratory quotient greater than 1 could indicate a state of preparing for hibernation, as I was not able to find the source for it anywhere, although if anyone has that source I would happily look it over.--Cwelsh3 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The change introduced by 19:08, 13 March 2009 128.143.65.71 is dubious. What is meant by "eliminated CO2"? Respiration doesn't "eliminate" any CO2.

It's common terminology. Biologists and doctors will frequently talk about 'eliminating waste' for removing it from the body. Mokele (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is more common for medical doctors. I am a biologist working with fermentor systems and we use RQ. In this case, and I think in general, "eliminated" makes no sense at all. It is rather confusing terminology (not untypical for medical science ;) ). I have added a short sentence to the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.149.87 (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Eliminated" actually makes much more sense than "produced" for a multicellular organism. While your organisms just excrete the CO2 into your system (to be vented or whatever by you), in a multicellular organism, CO2 produced at the cellular level is not necessarily eliminated in the lungs (it can be retained in the blood as bicarbonate, either purposefully in order to regulate blood pH or accidentally due to limits of respiratory elimination being lower than production rate). Elimination works for both unicellular and multicellular systems, while "produce" does not, so I prefer the former. Mokele (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you just confirming that there is not elimination of CO2 at all, in your statement? It still doesn't make sense to me. Neither cellular nor multicellular respiration "eliminate" any CO2 - I guess this refers to practical measurements in medical context (outhaled CO2) - I am sorry, it just seems like a big terminology failure to me. But I am OK with the current clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.149.87 (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, the following is said, "A mixed diet of fat and carbohydrate results in an average value between these numbers. An RQ may rise above 1.0 for an organism burning carbohydrate to produce or "lay down" fat (for example, a bear preparing for hibernation)." However, the laying down of body fat would occur only due to an excessive consumption and absorption of calories. The calories consumed can come from either protein, fat or carbohydrate, and it doesn't matter; an excess of calories results in fat gain. What is this section of the article really trying to say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.143.68.247 (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging

I see no obvious problems. I assume you would undertake the merge? However I also see that

Respiratory ratio is a redirect to Respiratory quotient and there is currently no proposal to move Respiratory quotient to Respiratory ratio. What are your intentions about that? This would be a merge with redirect. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]