Eating Before Sleep

"Proton Soup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dr_Dickie said:

"Chris Malcolm" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In misc.fitness.weights Blair P. Houghton <[email hidden]> wrote:
> JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>Blair P. Houghton <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>I don't get why we have to store nitrogen when air is over 70% it.
>>
>>Nitrogen balance doesn't have anything to do with absorbing nitrogen
>>from the air.

> Didn't say it did.

>>It's a marker for oxidation of amino acids in protein
>>turnover. When more nitrogen is lost (usually measured by excretion
>>of urea) than is taken in from dietary protein, it signifies more
>>deamination of amino acids; that signifies that protein breakdown is
>>exceeding protein synthesis, and excess amino acids are being broken
>>down, mostly in the liver.

> But nitrogen is the one atom that isn't (usually) part
> of the other kinds of macronutrients. We're 4 billion
> years evolved, and we're made of proteins, and we can't
> make proteins from the atoms all around us in the air?

Just to be clear here, atomic nitrogen is not in the air to any

significant

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

degree. Even plants need help in fixing molecular nitrogen (N2) into
nitrogen compounds (N).

Lightning is actually a handy source of oxidized nitrogen.

Thus the, "to any significant degree," part. Heck, even here in the
lightening capital of the U.S. of A. we do not get enough to grow on ;-)
Also, if I remember the cycle for the formation of 14C, I think it comes
from nitrogen....

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick

"Proton Soup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

DZ said:

Proton Soup said:

"Dr_Dickie" wrote:
>> > But nitrogen is the one atom that isn't (usually) part
>> > of the other kinds of macronutrients. We're 4 billion
>> > years evolved, and we're made of proteins, and we can't
>> > make proteins from the atoms all around us in the air?
>>
>Just to be clear here, atomic nitrogen is not in the air to any

significant

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>degree. Even plants need help in fixing molecular nitrogen (N2) into
>nitrogen compounds (N).

Lightning is actually a handy source of oxidized nitrogen.

But what's needed is the reduced N that gained 3 electrons from H.

Actually the bacterial nitrogenase has low enough substrate
specificity that it can first do the reaction N2O -> N2 (one electron
reduction) and then N2 -> NH3 (three more).

Um, OK, but I was under the impression that a great multitude of
nitrogen oxides were created by electrical discharges, including NO2
and NO3, the familiar nitrate. And these oxides dissolve readily in
water to create nitric and nitrous acids that can rain down easily to
earth.

But I'm not a chemist, and that was a long time ago...

Yeah, lightening fixes a little molecular nitrogen, but not enough for the
plants, let alone us!

Type of fixation N2 fixed (1012 g per year, or 106 metric tons per
year)
Non-biological
Industrial about 50
Combustion about 20
Lightning about 10
Total about 80

Biological
Agricultural land about 90
Forest and non-agricultural land about 50
Sea about 35
Total about 175
Data from various sources, compiled by DF Bezdicek & AC Kennedy, in
Microorganisms in Action (eds. JM Lynch & JE Hobbie). Blackwell Scientific
Publications 1998.

When I worked for some plant biologists, I learned a little more about
plants than I got in undergrad school (organismal, never took botany) they
were doing hydroponics, plants will take in all the nitrates you can stuff
down their gullets (to almost toxic levels), store the stuff for a rainy
day. Used to drip in nitric acid continuously to keep pH correct (when they
take in an anion, they release a hydroxide for charge balance) and add
nitrates.
Most of the nitric acid in rain comes from smog reaction with both natural
occurring hydrocarbons (from trees--environmentalists HATE that fact) and
cars. Got double bonds in hydrocarbons, stir in some NO and NxOx from car
exhaust and trees, add sunlight, generate a few hydroxide radicals, and mix
thoroughly (different nighttime cycle to set the whole process up again). I
had the whole cycle memorized for a class I taught several years ago, but
that has since been replaced with lipid nomenclature, and Alzheimer's stuff.
(Also, with catalytic converters, the reactive nitrogen species has been
knocked down a bit).

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:30:17 -0600, Proton Soup <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Um, OK, but I was under the impression that a great multitude of
nitrogen oxides were created by electrical discharges, including NO2
and NO3, the familiar nitrate. And these oxides dissolve readily in
water to create nitric and nitrous acids that can rain down easily to
earth.

But unfortunately, NO2 and alike is not used in proteins. It is
reduced nitrogen, not oxidized nitrogen. And the basis for all amino
acids are the group NH3.
Which may bind to C with a single bond as -CH2-NH2 (-CH2-NH3+ when
protonized at pH below pKa for the amino group)

NO2 has to be reduced from 4+ down to -3 before it can be utilized by
living organism. That cost a lot of ATP molecules to drive because it
is energetically an uphill reaction (like pumping water upstreams in
order to use it during night for electricity power plants)

DZ said:

Blair said:

That's like dying of thirst in the middle of the ocean.

Non-microbes can't do nitrogen fixation

We're made of microbes.

--Blair
"Look at it carefully."

Proton Soup said:

Which gets back to the original assumption that not producing your own
is somehow metabolically inefficient. If you're surrounded by water,
it'd make little sense to evolve some ability to aborb necessary H2O
from the vapor in the air. Likewise, if you're surrounded by
easily-accessible protein sources, making your own is not
metabolically efficent.

You do know why we evolved into endomorphs, right?

Here, let me remind you: THERE'S SOMETIMES NO FOOD FOR
A THOUSAND MILES FOR MONTHS AT A TIME.

--Blair
"Cuz even the people at Safeway
have to go on vacation."

"drhowarddrfinedrhoward" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Do not eat right before bed time. It does not make you fatter but the
food will not digest until you wake in the morning. Then your body tries
to digest it along with breakfast. You may not eat as much thus depriving
yourself of nutrition for that day.

That is utter [censored].

I have already seen food residue from what I ate just before going to bed in
my stool the next morning when I woke up.

Quoted message said:

Depending on what you eat it can interfere with your sleep; indigestion or
sugars trying to give you an energy boost.

This is true. Each person reacts differently.

Quoted message said:

The best is do not eat less than two hours before bed time though I've
heard as much as three and as little as 1.5 hours.

Again, varies from person to person. In addition, if you have problems with
heartburn or refulx, you may be better off eating even earlier.

Jeff

John said:

"Proton Soup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Blair P. Houghton said:

Clearly you don't know any more about that than you do
about efficiency.

Do you know what an objective function is? Did you use variational
calculus?

What makes objective functions limited to variational calculus?

Quoted message said:

Without Google, he doesn't. It doesn't matter how right you are, he will
always try to be more right than you, and will always try to have the last
word. He's stupid and shrewd like that.

Unfortunately, you're talking to the cart.

--Blair
"He let the horse go already."

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John said:

"Proton Soup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:06:08 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Clearly you don't know any more about that than you do
>about efficiency.

Do you know what an objective function is? Did you use variational
calculus?

What makes objective functions limited to variational calculus?

Quoted message said:

Without Google, he doesn't. It doesn't matter how right you are, he will
always try to be more right than you, and will always try to have the

last

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

word. He's stupid and shrewd like that.

Unfortunately, you're talking to the cart.

You couldn't have proven my point better.

Quoted message said:

--Blair
"He let the horse go already."

--John
"Who doesn't talk to inanimate objects."

John said:

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John said:

"Proton Soup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:06:08 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >Clearly you don't know any more about that than you do
> >about efficiency.
>
> Do you know what an objective function is? Did you use variational
> calculus?

What makes objective functions limited to variational calculus?

Quoted message said:

Without Google, he doesn't. It doesn't matter how right you are, he will
always try to be more right than you, and will always try to have the

last

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

word. He's stupid and shrewd like that.

Unfortunately, you're talking to the cart.

You couldn't have proven my point better.

If your point was that you're an argumentative moron
who thinks he can pretend that the reactions of others
fit your ambiguous criteria, then yes, I have.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

--Blair
"He let the horse go already."

--John
"Who doesn't talk to inanimate objects."

You wouldn't know the difference.

--Blair
"That would require sentience."

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John said:

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John <[email hidden]> wrote:
>"Proton Soup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...
>> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:06:08 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> >Clearly you don't know any more about that than you do
>> >about efficiency.
>>
>> Do you know what an objective function is? Did you use variational
>> calculus?

What makes objective functions limited to variational calculus?

>Without Google, he doesn't. It doesn't matter how right you are, he

will

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>always try to be more right than you, and will always try to have the

last

Quoted message said:

>word. He's stupid and shrewd like that.

Unfortunately, you're talking to the cart.

You couldn't have proven my point better.

If your point was that you're an argumentative moron
who thinks he can pretend that the reactions of others
fit your ambiguous criteria, then yes, I have.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

--Blair
"He let the horse go already."

--John
"Who doesn't talk to inanimate objects."

You wouldn't know the difference.

--Blair
"That would require sentience."

Schmuck.

John said:

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John said:

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> John <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >"Proton Soup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> >news:[email hidden]...
> >> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:06:08 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >> >Clearly you don't know any more about that than you do
> >> >about efficiency.
> >>
> >> Do you know what an objective function is? Did you use variational
> >> calculus?
>
> What makes objective functions limited to variational calculus?
>
> >Without Google, he doesn't. It doesn't matter how right you are, he

will

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >always try to be more right than you, and will always try to have the
last
> >word. He's stupid and shrewd like that.
>
> Unfortunately, you're talking to the cart.

You couldn't have proven my point better.

If your point was that you're an argumentative moron
who thinks he can pretend that the reactions of others
fit your ambiguous criteria, then yes, I have.

Quoted message said:

> "He let the horse go already."

"Who doesn't talk to inanimate objects."

You wouldn't know the difference.

"That would require sentience."

Schmuck.

Hypocrite.

--Blair
"Must not be so inanimate."

No it is not a bad thing. As long as you eat a healthy meal, preferably
high in protein. Go to a local GNC and ask them about all of the protein
supplements that they have that are designed to be taken before you sleep.
As I am sure you know that when the body is asleep it does most of its
growing, if you do not have anything in the old tank then it does not grow.
I wake up in the middle of the night and I will eat.
"NYC XYZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi, All:

I've heard different things about eating before bed...it makes you fat,
food simply passes through without real benefit, interferes with a good
night's sleep...does anyone know (and/or have links/refs) regarding
this matter?

I mean, is it a bad thing? (Unhealthy?) Why?

TIA!