Eating Before Sleep



On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:28:48 -0500, "00doc" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>
>>
>> You know what I don't get?
>>
>> I don't get why we have to store nitrogen when air is over
>> 70% it.
>
>We can't use the nitrogen in the air. In the air pairs of
>nitrogen atoms are tightly bound to each other and our
>bodies don't have a way to split them. That is usually done
>by bacteria living around the roots of plants. The nitrogen
>is then incorportated into plant amino acids/protiens and
>they work their way up the food chain until they end up in
>your powerbar.
>
>But really - it is not the nitrogen per se that is important
>anyway. Biochemists just use it as a marker for protien
>since carbohydrates and fats don't have it (or much if it).

There's some guy in India that claims he gets all the energy he needs
just by staring at the sun. I suspect he cheats, though, and is
actually a filter-feeder.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane
 
JMW <[email protected]> wrote:
>Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> 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?

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

--Blair
"It's fershlugginer."
 
00doc <[email protected]> wrote:
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>
>>
>> You know what I don't get?
>>
>> I don't get why we have to store nitrogen when air is over
>> 70% it.
>
>We can't use the nitrogen in the air. In the air pairs of
>nitrogen atoms are tightly bound to each other and our
>bodies don't have a way to split them. That is usually done
>by bacteria living around the roots of plants.

We have bacteria in us to help us digest our food; and
mitochondria are essentially bacterial symbiotes. No reason
we couldn't have nitrogen-fixing bacteria somewhere in our
system.

--Blair
"Except someone forgot to design it in."
 
00doc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Exersize reduces testosterone levels as well so I'm not
>really sure I would waste too much time looking at that and
>trying to figure out what it means.

Same as the reduction in cholesterol levels: exercise
and/or post-exercise recovery (repair, restoration,
anabolism) consume them, and frequent, periodic exercise
keeps them below a true resting level.

--Blair
"It's good for you."
 
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 05:58:08 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:

>JMW <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> 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?
>
>That's like dying of thirst in the middle of the ocean.
>

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.

Besides, cows are just so tasty.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane
 
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> 00doc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You know what I don't get?
>>>
>>> I don't get why we have to store nitrogen when air is
>>> over
>>> 70% it.
>>
>> We can't use the nitrogen in the air. In the air pairs of
>> nitrogen atoms are tightly bound to each other and our
>> bodies don't have a way to split them. That is usually
>> done
>> by bacteria living around the roots of plants.
>
> We have bacteria in us to help us digest our food; and
> mitochondria are essentially bacterial symbiotes. No
> reason
> we couldn't have nitrogen-fixing bacteria somewhere in our
> system.

I don't know why it is not to our advantage to have them,
but if it was we would because you are right, there is no
reason why we can't.

--
00doc
 
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> 00doc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Exersize reduces testosterone levels as well so I'm not
>> really sure I would waste too much time looking at that
>> and
>> trying to figure out what it means.
>
> Same as the reduction in cholesterol levels: exercise
> and/or post-exercise recovery (repair, restoration,
> anabolism) consume them, and frequent, periodic exercise
> keeps them below a true resting level.

Testosterone is not consumed as it is used like some
nutrient. It binds to a recptor and then is released from it
unchanged.

--
00doc
 
In misc.fitness.weights Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
> JMW <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> 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?

No.

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

Exactly. As people often do. What's your point?

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
"Chris Malcolm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In misc.fitness.weights Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > JMW <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> 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
degree. Even plants need help in fixing molecular nitrogen (N2) into
nitrogen compounds (N).


> No.
>
> > That's like dying of thirst in the middle of the ocean.
>
> Exactly. As people often do. What's your point?
>
> --

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick
 
Hi,All
eating before sleep, makes you really fat, that is a fact, that I know
and I have tried myself.
I have my dinner at 5,30pm and that is all, then I can just dive myself
for a piece of fruit or have a glass of water.

that is all
bye,
ana
NYC XYZ wrote:
> 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!
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,All
> eating before sleep, makes you really fat, that is a fact, that I know
> and I have tried myself.
> I have my dinner at 5,30pm and that is all, then I can just dive myself
> for a piece of fruit or have a glass of water.
>
> that is all
> bye,
> ana
That has got to be one seriously calorie laden dinner you are packing there
pal.
Oh yeah, falling down the stairs makes you live for 100 years, it is a fact,
it happened to my uncle!

--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick
 
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:28:53 -0500, "Dr_Dickie"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Chris Malcolm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In misc.fitness.weights Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > JMW <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> 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
>degree. Even plants need help in fixing molecular nitrogen (N2) into
>nitrogen compounds (N).

Lightning is actually a handy source of oxidized nitrogen.

>
>> No.
>>
>> > That's like dying of thirst in the middle of the ocean.
>>
>> Exactly. As people often do. What's your point?
>>
>> --

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane
 
Proton Soup <[email protected]> wrote:
> "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
>>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).

See, it's even more extra work.

DZ
 
"Dr_Dickie" wrote

> Oh yeah, falling down the stairs makes you live for 100 years, it is a
> fact,
> it happened to my uncle!
>
The only problem is that you walk a little funny.
 
On 9 Mar 2005 21:58:29 GMT, DZ <[email protected]> wrote:

>Proton Soup <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "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
>>>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...

>See, it's even more extra work.
>
>DZ

-----------
Proton Soup

"Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane
 
Proton Soup <[email protected]> wrote:
> DZ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Proton Soup <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.

NO, NO2 and NO3- (ion) are even more oxidized than N2O (having 2,4 or
all 5 electrons lost). The fixation by bacteria is the process going
in the opposite direction of nitrogen reduction to NH3 - compared to
the neutral N2. Then the reduced N from NH3 is used to make
aminoacids.

DZ
 
"Proton Soup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 9 Mar 2005 21:58:29 GMT, DZ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Proton Soup <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "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
>>>>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...

If you start mixing nitrates and organic molecules they'll tend to react and
give off a nice little puff of carbon dioxide and water, which isn't too
productive. Or nitrate things, which gives you a nitro-object, not an amide,
although it's a nice way to prepare for a more violent puff of carbon
dioxide and water at a later stage. Whereas ammonia will slot into organic
chemistry fairly nicely; the free electron pair that grabs H+ in water will
grab a carbon atom on the end of an organic ion, then C-N is stronger than
N-H, so when you dry things out you'll tend to get the amide.

If I remember my chemistry from school, anyway. It's a few years ago.

Peter
 
"Proton Soup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:28:53 -0500, "Dr_Dickie"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chris Malcolm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In misc.fitness.weights Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > JMW <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> 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
> >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 protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 9 Mar 2005 21:58:29 GMT, DZ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Proton Soup <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "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
> >>>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 protected]>
wrote:

>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)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back