2
$\begingroup$

Every healthy organism stores some of its biochemical energy in reserves (e.g. adipose tissue, glycogen), but much of an organism's biochemical energy is bound in ways that aren't normally accessible to it (e.g. protein in muscles or vital organs).

The latter quantity has some thermodynamic implications. For example, the inaccessible energy can be transferred to a predator if the organism is eaten, and a fetus's inaccessible energy must be obtained from its mother.

To research these concepts, I'm looking for a term for energy that's accessible by the organism and a term for energy that's not accessible by the organism.

I've searched the web (and StackExchange specifically) for a variety of terms, (e.g. "expendable", "reserved", "essential", "innate", etc.) but none of them produced relevant results.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ The body will only use the energy in protein (muscle mass) under severe malnourishment so it isn't really considered an energy store to my knowledge. You should look on PubMed for the literature. $\endgroup$
    – bob1
    Commented Jun 19 at 21:30
  • $\begingroup$ Are you looking for a word/phrase other than short term and long term? Take a look at the Wikipedia article on glycogen, that lays it out from Creatine TP all the way to protein breakdown. Could you then edit to clarify what's missing. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 19 at 21:47
  • $\begingroup$ I'm looking for a term for energy that's usable by the organism and a term for energy that's not usable by the organism. The former includes both short-term and long-term energy stores. The latter includes energy that isn't in any energy store but could, e.g., be obtained by a predator eating the organism. Does that clarify the question? If so, then I'll update it. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 19 at 23:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Do please update your question with this clarification. Also remove the reference to "essential structures" as this was quite confusing to me. I would focus on what you appear to want (not what is usually considered by biochemists) which seem to me the potential of the cadaver of a prey to supply energy to the predator. Is this so? There may be terms in use by social nutritionalists, but certainly not by biochemists. I would try to replace the bald term "energy" in any phrase you may have to devise as a solution. $\endgroup$
    – David
    Commented Jun 20 at 20:11

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

I have been working on nonequilibrium thermodynamics related to life and its implications for Hegelian philosophy and this concept you describe is quite interesting. Imagining that there is a being, an agent, that takes advantage of a certain mass for its survival, the simplest term would be "metabolize", from the Greek μεταβολή (change, transformation) with the suffix indicating transformation.

While metabolizable is a generic term for using something, I have distinguished between two varieties of metabolization. On the one hand, simple catabolization, decomposition into smaller parts for structural reuse, from the Greek καταβολή. Literally, καταβολή means to throw down. This "throw" is somewhat strange, but as it is an established term, it is better to use it.

On the other hand, the use as a mere energy resource, we should use "trophic", from τροφή (trophē): "feeding" or "nutrition," derived from the verb "τρέφω" (trépho), which means "to feed" or "to nourish.", giving metatrophism to the mere feeding without integrating into the body structure.

Finally, let's see how to adapt this nomenclature to describe the concepts of your research, of things that are beyond the reach of use as energy:

  • Parathrophic (parathrophizable) - unsuited to use as food (such as sand).
  • Parametabolic (parametabolizable) - unsuited to decompose to use as structural elements (such as meat for vegetarians).
  • Paracatabolic (paracatabolizable) - unsuited to decompose (such as cellulose for humans).

Hope this helps with the nomenclature in your research!

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Even though that nomenclature isn't standard, it sounds consistent and useful, so I've upvoted. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 29 at 15:32
2
$\begingroup$

I assume that, as suggested by the original form of this question and the comments requesting clarification, that the interest is in the energy a carnivorous animal predator can obtain from its killed prey. In this case, the most appropriate terms to describe this would seem to be those employed by nutritionalists. From a perusal of this topic in various Wikipedia articles I find no internationally recognized phrase, but would suggest the following as consistent with the terminology in this field:

Dietary Energy Equivalent

The use of the word “dietary” (or something similar) is important as it makes it clear that one is not concerned with the energy reserves that the living animal deposits for its own use, although these obviously contribute to the ‘dietary energy equivalent’.

(One of the Wikipedia articles that prompted this suggestion was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energy_intake — a table heading therein.).

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Although that terminology doesn't capture the distinction that I'm looking for (which is between the parts of an organism's DEE that it can or can't use for itself), it's helpful for further research. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 29 at 15:34
  • $\begingroup$ @MatthewMilone — As I keep telling you, the distinction is unnecessary because you are talking about chalk and cheese, not cheddar and brie. As far as the organism is concerned, energy reserves are by definition fuels it can use for itself and the only thing a biochemist or physiologist or the organism itself would consider with respect to that organism. $\endgroup$
    – David
    Commented Jun 30 at 11:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .