 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / March 2005Eating Before Sleep
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! > Hi, All: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > TIA! I usually eat dinner at 10pm, then go right to bed. But I don't get home from the gym until 9pm, and to deprive my body of protein and nutrients post workout would be stupid. I also eat before I go to the gym. Usually a protein shake with some fruit. It's not so much "when" you eat, but how much in a day. Excess calories is what make you fat. When I get home from the gym, I'm usually around 1,800 - 2,000 calories at that point. Since I'm cutting (dropping some weight), I'm shooting for around 2,600 calories. So, dinner is around 600 calories. You need to estimate what your calories are to maintain your weight. Then you can decide to eat at that to maintain, or under that to lose weight. I like this site: http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CalRequire.html You could also start a free account on fitday.com and track calories. This will also give you grams of protein / carbs / fats eaten, which is helpful. If you eat more than your maintenance in a 24 hr period, you'll get fat. If you eat under your maintenance, you'll lose weight. Simple.  Signature-Larry :: NYC XYZ wrote: ::: Hi, All: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] :: If you eat more than your maintenance in a 24 hr period, you'll get :: fat. If you eat under your maintenance, you'll lose weight. Simple. Not quite. You can average calories over days to avoid weight gain. Hence, if you eat over maintenance one day and then eat under maintenance the next by the same amount, it will balance out. there seems to be a lag time before the body can respond to an increase/decrease relative to maintenance. IME, BTW. :: -- :: -Larry >>> NYC XYZ wrote: >>>> Hi, All: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >>> -- >>> -Larry Good point. I stand corrected, and I should've pointed that out. It's just, how much detail do you provide? Most noobs need the "day by day" thing to understand it's calories in / calories out that determines weight loss. For me, I look at the entire week, as I tend to eat...and drink...over my maintenance on the weekends. Signature-Larry 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. Depending on what you eat it can interfere with your sleep; indigestion or sugars trying to give you an energy boost. 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. >...the food will not digest until you wake in the morning. I'd love to see a reference for that gem. >> ...the food will not digest until you wake in the morning. > > I'd love to see a reference for that gem. I was wondering the same thing... Signature-Larry > Slambram wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I was wondering the same thing... "The Stooges Hotmail Guide To Health And Nutrition", page 127. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684854627/qid=1109797883/sr=2-1/ref=pd_b bs_b_2_1/104-3319846-3669566 David > >...the food will not digest until you wake in the morning. > > I'd love to see a reference for that gem. I've heard that too...and, frankly, it does seem that when I do eat right before bed (even just half of a "real" meal, up to two whole hours just before sleep), I tend to do a "number two" first or second thing in the morning! =d Too many books I've read that say that. Last person who told me this, a couple of weeks ago, was my personal trainer: George Turner. > Too many books I've read that say that. OK - name one. > Last person who told me > this, a couple of weeks ago, was my personal trainer: > George Turner. I've seen many personal trainers who did not have a clue. In fact - I would say it is most of them. Signature00doc > Too many books I've read that say that. Last person who told me > this, a couple of weeks ago, was my personal trainer: George Turner. Ahh...good 'ol George. Well, it must be true then! Seriously, I'd love to see a cite for your claim that food doesn't digest when you're sleeping. Or even a book reference. Signature-Larry This is not the exact info you are asking for but it talks about what I mean: http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=george&dbid=109 "our digestive tracts are set up to work best when we are standing; lying down results in gravity pulling the "wrong way" to help food digest. Even though the practice of napping after a meal is common, it isn't ideal from the standpoint of digestion. " "Sleep is the least physically demanding part of the day, and the least logical target for release of food energy and nutrients." "A small snack in the hour before bed is usually not problematic if you are truly hungry, but the ideal solution is to time your last meal so that you don' feel hungry during the 1-2 hours before bed. " > This is not the exact info you are asking for but it talks about what I > mean: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "our digestive tracts are set up to work best when we are standing; lying > down results in gravity pulling the "wrong way" to help food digest. I just found an explanation for your posts: you must be standing on your head. SignatureScott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com >This is not the exact info you are asking for but it talks about what I >mean: > >http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=george&dbid=109 > > isn't ideal from the standpoint of digestion. " How did you arrive at "...the food will not digest until you wake in the morning" from "...isn't ideal from the standpoint of digestion." > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 06:24:17 -0600, > "drhowarddrfinedrhoward" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the morning" from "...isn't ideal from the standpoint of > digestion." They also don't say why they think what they say. It is a bunch of nonsense. Signature00doc > 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. Why wouldn't the food digest when I am sleeping, why am I hungrier when I wake up after eating right before I go to bed? > Depending on what you eat it can interfere with your sleep; indigestion or > sugars trying to give you an energy boost. Just don't eat crap. > 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. I do not agree with this advice, I think you should eat whenever you like, but ideally spread your calories throughout the day. While bulking wake up in the middle of the night and chug a glass of milk. --Falooley > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > --Falooley It's not a matter of calories as much as acid burning your esophageal valve and eventually going up into your throat. The Ashley Simpson excuse as to why she sounded like sh.t. If you do it all the time eventually you will have esophageal reflux disease and will have to sleep in a more upright position. Anybody with this condition knows and you don't have to ask them twice about how long one can eat before going to bed. You will find out as the years pass. That question is really one for the young foolish kids. >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > how long one can eat before going to bed. You will find out as the > years pass. That question is really one for the young foolish kids. I don't think it's a matter of age as much as of obesity. SignaturePerre I gave up on SPAM and redirected it to hotmail instead. On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:44:58 +0100, "Per Elmsäter" <perelms@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >I don't think it's a matter of age as much as of obesity. It's both -- plus genetics. I have mild GERD. It is being controlled with proton pump meds. It has gotten worse as I have gotten older. It gets worse if I gain weight. My doc confirms both of these. He also says that I probably have a weakness or maybe a defect in the valve that keeps stomach acid in the stomach. Eating within an hour or so of going to bed causes severe heartburn. -- Email: Usenet-20031220 at spamex.com (11/09/04) > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:44:58 +0100, "Per Elmsäter" >>I don't think it's a matter of age as much as of obesity. > > It's both -- plus genetics. I have mild GERD. I just have to step out of lurking to contradict this... It is more eating habits and genetics than sheer obesity. I was always the skinniest kid in school, and have never been obese, or even average at any point in my life, but I remember having acid reflux from as early as the age of five. By the time I was 12, it was so severe, I could hardly swallow, and endoscopies showed severe damage as well as barrett's esophagus, (a pre-cancerous condition from repeated scaring.) For me, it was completely genetics and my dad who was always thin suffered at a young age as well. And back to the original question, the only problem with eating before bed is, as discovered, heartburn and acid. One effect of acid reflux is it causes difficulty breathing as acid may irritate the airways. If I lay down within 2-3 hours of eating, I wake up with horrific heartburn and difficulty breathing that lasts for hours, other people may be more lucky. mjoann > And back to the original question, the only problem with eating before > bed is, as discovered, heartburn and acid. One effect of acid reflux is > it causes difficulty breathing as acid may irritate the airways. If I > lay down within 2-3 hours of eating, I wake up with horrific heartburn > and difficulty breathing that lasts for hours, other people may be more > lucky. > > mjoann Ah, thank you -- I too get heartburn from eating too close to bed, though not always; quite rarely, even. So there's nothing else "wrong" with eating before bed? I'm talking about a "real" meal, not just a "snack." Just curious, that's all. I don't typically eat close to bedtime, but sometimes the schedule does work out that way, and I was concerned. Nothing's wasted? It all gets digested, like normal? Like, after working out at the gym, getting home, and finally having ate...going to sleep isn't unhealthy, then? > >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > I don't think it's a matter of age as much as of obesity. I am not obese although I am going up there in age and as I mentioned even the young and non-obese can have trouble speaking waking in the morning after their throat has been burned up. >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > --Falooley A jar of cookies close to the milk is downright convenient too ;) Actually it works while cutting too ;))) I just leave out the milk and go for the cookies. SignaturePerre I gave up on SPAM and redirected it to hotmail instead. Per Elmsäter wrote: > A jar of cookies close to the milk is downright convenient too ;) > Actually it works while cutting too ;))) I just leave out the milk and go > for the cookies. If you are cutting, nightly cookies should be the first thing you cut. --Falooley >> A jar of cookies close to the milk is downright convenient too ;) >> Actually it works while cutting too ;))) I just leave out the milk >> and go for the cookies. > > If you are cutting, nightly cookies should be the first thing you cut. I know. But it works. I leave enough room for them caloriewise. Actually to be truthful, I don't eat them every night. Then all of a sudden I go on a binge. I usually see this as a sign that it's time for an eating day or two ;) 'bout once a week, nowadays that I'm under 10% SignaturePerre I gave up on SPAM and redirected it to hotmail instead. >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. Horsepuckey. Please show some data. >Then your body tries to >digest it along with breakfast. You may not eat as much thus depriving [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >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. -- Email: Usenet-20031220 at spamex.com (11/09/04) > 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. Food doesn't digest. The stomach and intestines digest food. Your statement is completely wrong. The food may not get digested as fast as during the day, but it will get digested. > Then your body tries to digest it along with breakfast. Bull. There are times I had corn just before going to bed. And after I used the toilet the next morning, the husks passed. So food is digested during the night. Plus, people who have x-rays early in the morning have empty stomachs if they didn't break fast yet. > You may not eat as much thus depriving yourself of nutrition for that day. This is false, as well. > Depending on what you eat it can interfere with your sleep; indigestion or > sugars trying to give you an energy boost. > > 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. Actually, a lot of people are bothered by eating just before bed. Some people get reflux or don't sleep well. If you don't have reflux and sleep well after eating, there is no reason not to eat before bed. However, you are probably better off having a bigger meal during the day and having a smaller meal before going to bed. Jeff > 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. And some people claim this board is devoid of humor. Dear Darwin awards, we have another candidate... >> Do not eat right before bed time. It does not make you >> fatter but [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Darwin > awards, we have another candidate... Really. I mean - even if we assume for a second that this guy is right about not digesting food eaten before bed - then how is digesting it in the morning (and so not eating as much breakfast) worse than skipping the evening meal and just eating the breakfast? He is not only factually incorrect but logically inconsistent. Signature00doc > 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 bullshit. 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. > 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. > 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 >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? If you have GERD (reflux), it's probably not a good idea. But even if you have GERD, you may be able to get away with certain foods like milk, ice cream, protein shakes, etc., if you don't overdo it. >TIA! ----------- Proton Soup "Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane > >Hi, All: > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > "Thanks for noticing that I didn't actually say anything." - Mike Lane You should rephrase that from "if you have GERD" to "if you want to avoid GERD" and also if you want to avoid esophageal cancer. People don't get it that their is concentrated acid in their stomach and if you lie down then it travels back up. The esophagus and upper structures are not well suited for handling a constant acid load. >You should rephrase that from "if you have GERD" to "if you want to avoid >GERD" and also if you want to avoid esophageal cancer. People don't get it >that their is concentrated acid in their stomach and if you lie down then it >travels back up. The esophagus and upper structures are not well suited for >handling a constant acid load. If i lie down after i eat i'll get cancer? > >You should rephrase that from "if you have GERD" to "if you want to avoid > >GERD" and also if you want to avoid esophageal cancer. People don't get it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If i lie down after i eat i'll get cancer? Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004 Oct;20 Suppl 5:105-10. Related Articles, Links Review article: what I do now to manage adenocarcinoma risk, and what I may be doing in 10 years' time. Spechler SJ. Division of Gastroenterology, Dallas VA Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75216, USA. sjspechler@aol.com This article summarizes the present recommendations for the screening, surveillance and treatment of Barrett's oesophagus, and identifies those areas in which change seems likely within the next decade. As a result of economic constraints and emerging data on ethnic variations in the frequency of Barrett's oesophagus, future screening programmes will probably focus on those individuals most likely to develop Barrett's adenocarcinomas: older white men whose gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms are of long duration. The present surveillance strategy for patients with Barrett's oesophagus relies heavily on random biopsy sampling of the oesophagus to find dysplasia. In the future, biomarkers other than dysplasia may be used to identify patients at high risk for carcinogenesis, and physicians may use endoscopic techniques, such as fluorescence spectroscopy, to identify areas of dysplasia for biopsy sampling. Indirect evidence suggests that super-aggressive antisecretory therapy and treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may reduce the risk of cancer in Barrett's oesophagus. Well-designed prospective studies will be needed to determine whether these treatments have sufficient efficacy in cancer prophylaxis to justify the large numbers needed to treat. Finally, recent data are reviewed, which suggest that the gastro-oesophageal junction is exposed repeatedly to concentrated acid and to potentially genotoxic concentrations of nitric oxide generated from dietary nitrate. Future studies on carcinogenesis in Barrett's oesophagus may well focus on the combined roles of nitric oxide and gastric acid. Publication Types: Review Review, Tutorial PMID: 15456473 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Thanks for definition of the pre-cancerous condition known as Barrett's oesophagus, a risk factor for people who already have GERD. What i'd like to know is how you arrived at the conclusion that GERD and esophageal cancer is caused by lying down after you eat? The AMA says GERD is caused mostly by obesity and genetic factors, http://www.gerd.com/articles/recent/abstracts/2227.htm, and lying down after you eat is but one of many factors which exacerbates GERD in patients who already have it, http://www.gerd.com/intro/noframe/posscaus.htm Please cite something which backs up your correction of Proton Soup's original post from ""if you have GERD" to "if you want to avoid GERD" and also if you want to avoid esophageal cancer."" > Thanks for definition of the pre-cancerous condition known as > Barrett's oesophagus, a risk factor for people who already have GERD. > > What i'd like to know is how you arrived at the conclusion that GERD > and esophageal cancer is caused by lying down after you eat? " Finally, recent data are reviewed, which suggest that the gastro-oesophageal junction is exposed repeatedly to concentrated acid and to potentially genotoxic concentrations of nitric oxide generated from dietary nitrate" Notice the term gastro esophageal junction which is higher up the GI normally not exposed when upright. When the person is lying down then the acid can go into that area. > The AMA says GERD is caused mostly by obesity and genetic factors, > http://www.gerd.com/articles/recent/abstracts/2227.htm, and lying down > after you eat is but one of many factors which exacerbates GERD in > patients who already have it, That is true but it also exposes one to the acid which in tern can cause cancer. > http://www.gerd.com/intro/noframe/posscaus.htm > > Please cite something which backs up your correction of Proton Soup's > original post from ""if you have GERD" to "if you want to avoid > GERD" and also if you want to avoid esophageal cancer."" You are right I don't have any. I stand corrected. Eat before going to bed and live a happy life. Nothing will happen to you. The acid won't destroy your valve and there are no prgressive changes from non disease to partial obstruction of valve to a completetly compromised valve leading to complete reflux of acid over time. You are born with a damaged valve and the acid has nothing to do with it. I sense your frustration Robert. All us young whippersnappers squandering our healthy GI tracts by eating before we go to sleep. It's tragic. > I sense your frustration Robert. All us young whippersnappers > squandering our healthy GI tracts by eating before we go to sleep. > It's tragic. Not to mention us 50+ youngsters happily eating away both sitting and lying down. Almost in my sleep as a matter of fact. SignaturePerre I gave up on SPAM and redirected it to hotmail instead. > > I sense your frustration Robert. All us young whippersnappers > > squandering our healthy GI tracts by eating before we go to sleep. > > It's tragic. > > Not to mention us 50+ youngsters happily eating away both sitting and lying > down. Almost in my sleep as a matter of fact. I was in my thirties before I had symptoms related to my gut. Disease expression is dependent on genetics and environment over time. I fully appreciate both of "yous" philosophy of, "I don't have symptoms so I am healthy". Not all people develop lung cancer with smoking and most people with a high cholesterol and don't have heart disease can continue to eat anything they want. We don't know all the facts of disease progression or markers for disease progression so general statements usually apply. So let me restate my position to this. If you are healthy and will never develop the condition in question then you don't have to worry about it. For most of us who don't know whether or not we have the genetics for or the susceptibility to, then we have to assume a precautionary stance. >I was in my thirties before I had symptoms related to my gut. Disease >expression is dependent on genetics and environment over time. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >most of us who don't know whether or not we have the genetics for or the >susceptibility to, then we have to assume a precautionary stance. Very well put. >>Hi, All: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >you have GERD, you may be able to get away with certain foods like >milk, ice cream, protein shakes, etc., if you don't overdo it. Some can, I suppose. I can't get away with even water. Nada. If I eat within an hour or so of bedtime, I pay. -- Email: Usenet-20031220 at spamex.com (11/09/04) > Hi, All: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > TIA! This came to my mind: From "Protein Power" by Drs Eades in regard to the release of human growth hormone "A couple of important points need to be made, however. First, since increased glucose levels inhibit the release of growth hormone, it behooves us to avoid anything sweet, starchy or otherwise carbohydrate laden before we go to bed. Any of these substances will give us an elevation of blood glucose that will inhibit the normal shot of growth hormone released an hour or so after our falling asleep. See what all those snacks of milk and cookies at bedtime have been doing to you! Second, the pulse of growth hormone released by exercise generally hits the circulation toward the end of the workout and immediately after. If you want to inhibit this growth hormone surge, all you have to do is to eat a power bar or a candy or drink fruit juice, as trainers often advise you to do before, during, and right after workouts in the mistaken notion that you need "explosive, high-carbo energy" as on of these products advertises. What you're really getting is not growth hormone. Always work out on an empty stomach, don't consume anything except water during the workout, and don't eat until an hour or so after. Then make sure it's a protein-rich meal-you need plenty of amino acids for the growth hormone to use to repair and rebuild your muscles." Comments? Ren? >> Hi, All: >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Ren? I bet this doctor has never done a good workout in his life. That'd be all he'd need to realize how ridiculous the above statement is ;) SignaturePerre I gave up on SPAM and redirected it to hotmail instead. >> Hi, All: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > From "Protein Power" by Drs Eades in regard to the release of human growth > hormone ... Always work out on an > empty stomach, don't consume anything except water during the workout, and > don't eat until an hour or so after. Maybe if you're doing a short, not too intense session. If you're going to do a significant amount of work the above advice is at best stupid and at worst (long ride on a hot day) could kill you. Peter George Turner told us not to eat anything 2 1/2 hours before we worked out and would jump down your throat if you did. > George Turner told us not to eat anything 2 1/2 hours before we worked out > and would jump down your throat if you did. If you're going to do a short piece of work, then that's reasonable; you don't want anything sitting in your stomach where you might vomit it. If you're going to do an hour of weights work, then you might find that you run into problems with blood sugar levels getting low and screwing up your performance. I would, in that situation. So I'll eat a bit before or drink a sports drink during the workout. If you're doing a long bike ride, run, whatever, then you will certainly need to eat something, or you will deplete your glycogen stores within two or three hours and the rest of your ride will be unpleasant and slow. You also need to replace what you lose sweating; water is not good here, as it does not replace the salt you sweated out. If you are doing a long ride on a hot day, you can easily sweat more than 5 litres out; if you replace that with 5 litres of water you will end up with hyponatremia. This is particularly nasty because its symptoms are fairly similar to dehydration and heat exhaustion - so you are tempted to drink even more, and that makes it worse. If it gets serious, you will need proper medical treatment quickly; if you don't get it then it can be fatal. Peter I do a full hour of weight work with 12 minutes cardio. > George Turner told us not to eat anything 2 1/2 hours > before we > worked out and would jump down your throat if you did. Your buddy George seems like a blooming idiot to me. If I were you I would get away from him. I agree that a full bloated stomach is nto a good thing for a strenuous workout. But a light snack before hand is helpful. The the stuff about avoiding protien for an hour after is just carzy. All the recent experts I have read recently suggest having a shake or protien bar as you walk out the gym door. The perioid of highest nitrogen uptake is for about 4 hours after your workout. if you time it right you can have two meals in that time - but you have to eat one immediately after the workoout. Signature00doc My "buddy George" is a world class body builder. He's written for men's magazines since the 50s. Google for his name. He's 77 now but won a national competition when he was 73. He went on vacation in Paris a few months ago and visited a gym there and was recognized by several people there. George is in better shape than you are, I'm sure. > My "buddy George" is a world class body builder. He's > written for > men's magazines since the 50s. Google for his name. I've known several state and national level body builders that knew not what they were doing. Often the best athletes make the worst coaches and vice versa. > George is in better shape than you are, I'm sure. He probably is - but not because of his indepth knowledge of physiology and nutrition. My advice - work out with him but leave the "book learn'in" to some other source. Signature00doc > Hi, All: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I mean, is it a bad thing? (Unhealthy?) Why? There are two reasons why you should eat at least a high protein snack before bed. 1) Not eating before bed means you go too long without food. To gain muscle most experts recommend eating a small meal or snack every 3-4 hours. It is bad enough that you will be going 8 hours or so overnight without eating while you sleep but if dinner is your last meal it will be more like 12 hours. In that 12 hours you will end up in a catabolic state. 2) Sleep is a metabolically active time. It is recouperative. You need fuel. I agree that the snack before bed should be considered when figuring out how much to eat in a day so the total calories meet your goals regarding gaining or losing weight.Unless you are looking to bulk up and need more calories you will need to cut back somewhere else. Also, if reflux is an issue keeping the meal small and low fat can help. Also raising yuor head when you sleep can help. The people that say you won't digest and use the food at night are morons. Don't ever listen to a thing they say ever again. Signature00doc > 1) Not eating before bed means you go too long without food. To gain > muscle most experts recommend eating a small meal or snack every 3-4 > hours. It is bad enough that you will be going 8 hours or so overnight > without eating while you sleep If that were true then you are saying we need to get up in the middle of the night to eat. Breakfast is called breakfast because you "break your fast". > 2) Sleep is a metabolically active time. It is recouperative. You need > fuel. You don't eat so you can get through the night. You eat throughout the day and recuperate at night. > I agree that the snack before bed should be considered when figuring out > how much to eat in a day so the total calories meet your goals regarding > gaining or losing weight.Unless you are looking to bulk up and need more > calories you will need to cut back somewhere else. So if we snack at night we have to cut out some day time food? Then why snack at night at all? > Also, if reflux is an issue keeping the meal small and low fat can help. > Also raising yuor head when you sleep can help. Also not eating before you go to bed helps. Your body is not designed to digest food lying down. > The people that say you won't digest and use the food at night are morons. > Don't ever listen to a thing they say ever again. You contradict everything I've read. >> 1) Not eating before bed means you go too long without >> food. To gain [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > because you > "break your fast". Ummm...yeah? That's why it is called breakfast. What does that have to do with whether your should eat before bed? Nutritionally speaking I'm not sure we shouldn't get up at 3 am to eat. it would make sense. Personally, I like my sleep too much to do that and I do have some doubts about whether the decrease in sleep would be worth it. The the point is that none of the the quoted text above gives any argument against what I am saying. It is just kind of random babbling. >> 2) Sleep is a metabolically active time. It is >> recouperative. You [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > throughout > the day and recuperate at night. What is recouperation? If it involves muscle repair (or building) then it must require protein. Doesn't it make sense to put protein in the system at the time when you are using it? >> I agree that the snack before bed should be considered >> when figuring [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > food? Then > why snack at night at all? Because small frequent meals are used more efficiently than large infrequent ones. Are there really people who doubt this? Why not just eat one big meal a day? >> Also, if reflux is an issue keeping the meal small and >> low fat can [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You contradict everything I've read. Several people asked you what it is you are reading that says that. You still have not replied. If you have read so much that contradicts me then it should not be hard to post a reference or two. Alternately, you could give us some logical coherent reasoning to suggest what you say. Either would be fine by me. Signature00doc Just Google and you can find some stuff: http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=george&dbid=109 "our digestive tracts are set up to work best when we are standing; lying down results in gravity pulling the "wrong way" to help food digest. Even though the practice of napping after a meal is common, it isn't ideal from the standpoint of digestion. " "Sleep is the least physically demanding part of the day, and the least logical target for release of food energy and nutrients." "A small snack in the hour before bed is usually not problematic if you are truly hungry, but the ideal solution is to time your last meal so that you don' feel hungry during the 1-2 hours before bed. " > Just Google and you can find some stuff: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > meal so that you don' feel hungry during the 1-2 hours > before bed. " This just shopws why you should not be getting your information from alternative medicine/"healthfood" websites. The gut does not need gravity to work - other than helping to reduce reflux if that is an issue. if you understaood the anatomy you would understand that with the exception of the lower esophageal sphincter gravity is just not an issue. Sleep is not physically demanding in terms of work output/calories burned. But it is a metabolically active time and is when you do a lot of the recouperating rom your day. Your muscles do not get stronger during the workout - they get stronger from the repair when you rest. During the sleep the parasympathetic nervous system predominates and vagal tone is high. There is a reason that they call the parasympathetic system the "rest and digest" system (as opposed to adrenaline - "fight or flight"). That is why before and possibly durng the workout you should be consuming light snacks that feature complex carbs but then after the workout and before bed you shoul dbe consuming protein. You need the carbs to burn during the workout but the protein to repair the damage. Signature00doc ====================================== That is why before and possibly durng the workout you should be consuming light snacks that feature complex carbs but then after the workout and before bed you shoul dbe consuming protein. You need the carbs to burn during the workout but the protein to repair the damage. ====================================== Now that is probably the stupidest statement I have ever read anywhere. >====================================== >That is why before and possibly durng the workout you should [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >====================================== >Now that is probably the stupidest statement I have ever read anywhere. I'd call you a troll if i didn't already know how big a moron you are. For God's sake man, google "carbs before workout" >durng the workout you should >be consuming light snacks This is the part I take issue with. >> durng the workout you should >> be consuming light snacks > > This is the part I take issue with. At least he knows how to post in a newsgroup. Why don't you do us all a favor and try leaving the prior poster's name when you reply? Signature-Larry > <SNIP> > > Sleep is not physically demanding in terms of work > output/calories burned. But it is a metabolically active > time and is when you do a lot of the recouperating rom your > day. Hmm! Is that why you hear all those trickling and grumbling noises at night! > That is why before and possibly durng the workout you should > be consuming light snacks that feature complex carbs You know, that's really interesting -- I've NEVER been bothered by strenuous exercise right after eating! Even in the Army, when that was like that norm...always wondered what was up with folks who had stomach cramps, etc., from strenous physical activity right after a meal. > but > then after the workout and before bed you shoul dbe > consuming protein. You need the carbs to burn during the > workout but the protein to repair the damage. I don't understand this bit about needing carbs to burn during the workout...doesn't the body just grab at the fat and burn that?? Why stick in more carbs? Boy, this sh.t's too much "rocket science" for me...I liked it better when I was 21 and just doing whatever the hell I wanted! If I wanted to eat it, I ate it! If I wanted to lift it, I lifted! If I felt like a siesta, I had one. Guess I'll just stick to trusting my genetics. ^_^ > You know, that's really interesting -- I've NEVER been > bothered by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > right after a > meal. If you work out hard about 45-60 minutes into it you will have burned though the muscle glycogen supplies and your body will be kicking into catabolism mode. Most people will feela let down in energy at that point. There are basically three wasy around this: 1) Keep the strenuous part of the workout (heavy lifting - tough sets) to less than 45 minutes (which Simmons advocates anyway). 2) Sip an energy drink during the workouts instead of water. 3) Put something some complex carbs "in the tank" (i.e. the stomach) right before the workout so that they will digest and hit the blood streat during. Of course - I didn't list as reasonable what are probably the two most commonly done options: 4) Lift like a high school girl. 5) Go hungry and fight through the second half feeling like sh.t. > I don't understand this bit about needing carbs to burn > during the > workout...doesn't the body just grab at the fat and burn > that?? Why > stick in more carbs? You can burn fat but it is not that efficient. The body has trouble keeping up if it has the rely on fat metabolism. What usually happens is you feels sluggish during the workout and then afterwards the body will catch up and replete the glycogen stores from fat. > Boy, this sh.t's too much "rocket science" for me...I > liked it better [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If I felt > like a siesta, I had one. When I was in college I used to be able to lie down on the mats outside the weight room that people were using for stretching and sit ups after my squat work-out, take a 15 minute nap, and then get back up and finnish. It really freaked people out sometimes. Signature00doc > If you work out hard about 45-60 minutes into it you will > have burned though the muscle glycogen supplies and your > body will be kicking into catabolism mode. Most people will > feela let down in energy at that point. Ah, hm...I guess it wasn't that strenuous, and not so prolonged either, then.... > There are basically three wasy around this: > 1) Keep the strenuous part of the workout (heavy lifting - > tough sets) to less than 45 minutes (which Simmons advocates > anyway). > > 2) Sip an energy drink during the workouts instead of water. Energy drink?! Do you really believe in that stuff?? Why? What do you recommend?? > 3) Put something some complex carbs "in the tank" (i.e. the > stomach) right before the workout so that they will digest > and hit the blood streat during. Again, I've never had problems (that I notice, anyway) from eating a real meal right before a workout, though I can't imagine, really, how it might be beneficial, either, to have something "in the tank".... > Of course - I didn't list as reasonable what are probably > the two most commonly done options: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 5) Go hungry and fight through the second half feeling like > sh.t. I have to admit, I rather enjoy that many times, pushing myself especially when I feel like crap...feels empowering in an "existential" way...it's only that just recently have I (noticeably, anyway) hurt myself by pushing myself...that's why I'm asking all these questions now, 'cause I've now hurt myself twice and I'm running a bit scared at what the hell else can go wrong...and it was the simplest thing, too: jogging! Pushed myself to keep sprinting...finally pulled a muscle -- not debilitating, but serious enough to warrant a slight limp in my gait for a few weeks! > You can burn fat but it is not that efficient. The body has > trouble keeping up if it has the rely on fat metabolism. > What usually happens is you feels sluggish during the > workout and then afterwards the body will catch up and > replete the glycogen stores from fat. Ah, yes, I did read something about fat taking longer to get to and all that...but then again, I've also read in one of Arnold's books that working out too soon after eating means that blood cells are too busy with digestion and therefore not as many are devoted to delivering supplies to the muscles exercised.... > When I was in college I used to be able to lie down on the > mats outside the weight room that people were using for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > 00doc LOL -- I'm still doing that in the locker room at the gym! I just go to sleep on the bench, probably all of ten minutes, and feel very refreshed afterwards. Problem is, though, too much trash talk in the locker rooms wake me up! >> 2) Sip an energy drink during the workouts instead of >> water. > > Energy drink?! Do you really believe in that stuff?? > Why? What do > you recommend?? No - I think they are a waste of money. I prefer to eat a light snack a little before the workouts. >> You can burn fat but it is not that efficient. The body >> has [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to > delivering supplies to the muscles exercised.... The "blood cells" don't so the digesting. They also don't do the lifting. So there you have it. That just goes back to my point about the best athletes not always being the best coaches. > LOL -- I'm still doing that in the locker room at the gym! > I just go [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > talk in the > locker rooms wake me up! I don't know why some people find that so weird. Signature00doc > No - I think they are a waste of money. I prefer to eat a > light snack a little before the workouts. Ah, well, I'm surprised you offered it as an option, then. > The "blood cells" don't so the digesting. They also don't do > the lifting. So there you have it. Well, it was something along the lines of blood cells having to distribute nutrients -- or whatever aspect of digestion they're involved in -- and therefore, I dunno, not having time to do oxygen/carbon dioxide work, I guess, IIRC...! > That just goes back to my point about the best athletes not > always being the best coaches. Yeah, it's true -- hard to know whom to trust! > I don't know why some people find that so weird. I used to have lunch in the locker rooms too when my schedule was different! It just seemed like the thing to do when spending so much time at the gym...the eat in the office/sleep over at the office kind of thing! >> 2) Sip an energy drink during the workouts instead of water. > > Energy drink?! Do you really believe in that stuff?? Why? What do > you recommend?? Don't know quite whether you mean energy drink as in carbs+electrolytes+water or as in red bull type stuff, but... In the first case, there's not much that needs 'belief'. The carbs, whichever form they're in (cheap = sugar, less cheap = mix of sugars and more complex carbs that are supposed to be better), provide you with a bit more energy. Not really any different to drinking water and eating a bit, just more convenient, if you're lifting. If you're doing hard cardio stuff and sweating a lot, then the electrolytes bit is good; it replaces the salt you lose sweating; if you're sweating out more than a litre in your workout you should replace the salt you lose. In the second case, you have more sugar, usually no electrolytes, some caffeine and a few other enhance-marketing things. Won't hydrate you all that well, but you can always get some water at the gym, and it won't make much difference if you're lifting. More sugar might help if you starved yourself before lifting, otherwise makes little difference. Caffeine is a stimulant and will probably have some minor positive effect on your lifts. But they tend to be overpriced. If you want caffeine, caffeine pills are much cheaper, coffee is a lot nicer and (if you make it) also cheaper. You don't want to drink these if you're doing long cardio work - you'll get dehydrated, low on salt, high on caffeine (which will damage performance and isn't really much fun), and light on wallet. Peter > <SNIP> > > Nutritionally speaking I'm not sure we shouldn't get up at 3 > am to eat. it would make sense. Personally, I like my sleep > too much to do that and I do have some doubts about whether > the decrease in sleep would be worth it. Actually, as a related side-note, the mid-night snack seems to have originated with a Medieval tradition of getting up in the middle of the night to visit neighbors and chit-chat. Just thought of it in the midst of all this. >> <SNIP> >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of it in the > midst of all this. Good point - not all cultures go to bed at 10 and sleep 8 hours. Many sleep more than once a day and so avoid the prolonged fasting. And it is not just hispanic cultures taking a siesta as a break from the mid-day heat. Many Asian cultures do it and many native cultures without electricity do a form of it. They go to sleep at sunset, wake up for a period in the middle of the night, then take another nap before dawn. Many experts argue that the western 8 hour fast (really 12 for most people who do not eat before bed) and then breakfast is not a natural pattern for eating or sleeping. Signature00doc > Good point - not all cultures go to bed at 10 and sleep 8 > hours. Many sleep more than once a day and so avoid the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > -- > 00doc Indeed, there've been psychological experiments where folks are deprived of a clock and any other sign of time (windows to the outside world, etc.) to gauge what the human body's "natural rhythm" might be: turns out that we'd wake up around nine or ten in the morning if left to ourselves.... >1) Not eating before bed means you go too long without food. >To gain muscle most experts recommend eating a small meal or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >hours. In that 12 hours you will end up in a catabolic >state. It's rumored that people wake up in the middle of the night to pound protein shakes. Striving for 24/7 anabolism is slightly nuts. Does it matter if you reach your goal weight in 8 weeks or 8 weeks and two days? Only if you started training two days too late and think that 60 grams will make a difference. >2) Sleep is a metabolically active time. It is >recouperative. You need fuel. If you have half a pound of fat on you, you have plenty of fuel for a night's sleep. If you are eating excess calories to anabolize, you have way more than plenty of fuel for a night's sleep. The only thing you might need at night is protein, but that's because you need protein every few hours because it doesn't store anywhere but as muscle. >The people that say you won't digest and use the food at >night are morons. Don't ever listen to a thing they say ever >again. Wasn't that Brink? --Blair "Wasn't it yams?" Blair P Houghton <b@p.h> wrote: > The only thing you might need at night is protein, but that's > because you need protein every few hours because it doesn't store > anywhere but as muscle. That free aminoacids can't be stored is insufficient to make this argument. Think of a IN->reservoir->OUT system where the size of (flow through) "OUT" is increasing with the flow through "IN". Then the well established nitrogen retention adaptation due to fasting needs to be taken into account. One scenario is that the net balance is higher if you take proteins around the time of exercise (when it's most needed) while taking advantage of the high nitrogen retention (through relative decrease in intake throughout the rest of the day). There is a paper by Mosoni and Mirand that found better nitrogen balance for 3 vs. 1 times a day intake in young people, but only under the deficit of protein. Moreover, higher frequency (6 times) didn't improve retention. Then they describe a study on nitrogen balance in old people - the balance is higher during the "pulse pattern" protein feeding. For example, it's higher with 3 protein-containing meals a day than it is with 4. Given the additional health benefits of intermittent fasting (http://tinyurl.com/5nlu4) I'm in favor of starting it early. My personal experience is that I can stay reasonably fit while eating once a day and I'm not even getting anywhere near the proverbial 1.2 g/kg of protein - http://statgen.ncsu.edu/zaykin/up/mup.avi (I don't have any biceps shots ;) DZ >Blair P Houghton <b@p.h> wrote: >> The only thing you might need at night is protein, but that's [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >while taking advantage of the high nitrogen retention (through >relative decrease in intake throughout the rest of the day). You know what I don't get? I don't get why we have to store nitrogen when air is over 70% it. Hell, I don't get why we have to eat carbon, for the same reason. We suck O2 in through our lungs. We should get CO2 and N2 the same way. There's something just uneconomical about the way we do it. --Blair "I'll have to check Pauling for the energy balance..." >>Blair P Houghton <b@p.h> wrote: >>> The only thing you might need at night is protein, but that's [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >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. 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. SignatureJMW http://www.rustyiron.net >>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." >>>I don't get why we have to store nitrogen when air is over 70% it. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >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 >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." >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. Needs too much energy to break down from N2 to organic forms. But certain plants (nitrogen fixation) is capable of it and some bacteria may reduce N2 also. That's why proteins are so important. When once N2 is converted, we may produce many of the amino acids ourself, but you need a NH3+ donor molecule. like glutamine (made from two glutamate - > glutamine plus alfa-ketoglutarate. Glutamine + ketoacid -> glutamate + aminoacid. >>But nitrogen is the one atom that isn't (usually) part >>of the other kinds of macronutrients. We're 4 billion [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > certain plants (nitrogen fixation) is capable of it and some bacteria > may reduce N2 also. Those plants still use symbiotic bacteria (Rhizobium) for the fixation DZ >>>I don't get why we have to store nitrogen when air is over 70% it. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >That's like dying of thirst in the middle of the ocean. Non-microbes can't do nitrogen fixation: reduce N2 to NH3. But they can use fixed N and common metabolites to make aminoacids. Microbes had no choice and they have the feedback inhibition if there's lots of NH3. The reaction is demanding - 16 ATP molecules per one fixation. Nitrogenase that's doing it is also sensitive to excess of oxygen and while at it bacteria switch to anaerobic mode, so we'd have some problems here. DZ >Blair wrote: >>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." In misc.fitness.weights Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> 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? SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +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/] > In misc.fitness.weights Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote: > >>>I don't get why we have to store nitrogen when air is over 70% it. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > 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? SignatureDr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick >> In misc.fitness.weights Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote: >> >>>I don't get why we have to store nitrogen when air is over 70% it. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >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 >>> > But nitrogen is the one atom that isn't (usually) part >>> > of the other kinds of macronutrients. We're 4 billion [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 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 >>>> > But nitrogen is the one atom that isn't (usually) part >>>> > of the other kinds of macronutrients. We're 4 billion [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >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 >>> Lightning is actually a handy source of oxidized nitrogen. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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 >>>>> > But nitrogen is the one atom that isn't (usually) part >>>>> > of the other kinds of macronutrients. We're 4 billion [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > 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 |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message