4029 replies to this topic

[mettmett]

nice. i noticed they talk about what ive been suggesting and doing myself: that being the use of st. johns wort (photosensitizer) syngergistically with light treatment. albeit they only use it with yellow light treatment.

"New findings/ indicators:

• The yellow laser stimulates the strongest natural photosensitizer – Hypericin out of St. Johns wort – and is therefore the most efficient laser in photodynamic cancer therapy.
• Combined with Hypericin, yellow lasers are applicable for the treatment of viral and chronical bacterial infections.
• A broad range of studies shows that anti- depressive effects of Hypericin can be strengthened significantly once the impact of Hypericin is enhanced by yellow lasers. Immediate improvements of patient’s sense of well- being have been observed.
• The broad theoretical knowledge about the application opportunities of Hypericin can now be implemented in practice."

http://www.webermedi...w-yellow-laser/

[Psionic]

Methylene blue is also a photosensitizer used to create singlet oxygen when exposed to both oxygen and light.

So it implies it can be also very effective, does anyone tried LLLT and MB together?

[Nattzor]

Methylene blue is also a photosensitizer used to create singlet oxygen when exposed to both oxygen and light.

So it implies it can be also very effective, does anyone tried LLLT and MB together?

We've already touched that subject once. It might be good, might be bad. Assuming you don't use the wrong wave-lengths and use it for too long, it's probably bad (DNA damage) but lower dosage is probably ok (non significant DNA-damage).
http://www.longecity...660#entry609549 - MB + LLLT
http://www.longecity...630#entry609225 - MB + CoQ10

[mettmett]

after doing some reading, im going to drop MB and st johns wort. It seems they are only used with Light when trying to destroy microbes or cancerous cells through local generation of reactive oxygen species, a cytotoxin. - http://en.wikipedia....dynamic_therapy

the singlet oxygen is a reactive oxygen species(ROS) and is damaging to the cells. personally i havent combined mb with led, but it overall doesnt seem like a good idea. MB localizes in lysosomes, and combining MB with LED would likely damage the lysosomes in the targeted area through accumulation of ROS.

http://en.wikipedia...._oxygen_species
" Current studies demonstrate that the accumulation of ROS can decrease an organism's fitness because oxidative damage is a contributor to senescence. In particular, the accumulation of oxidative damage may lead to cognitive dysfunction, as demonstrated in a study in which old rats were given mitochondrial metabolites and then given cognitive tests. "

im just going to stick to led + pqq/coq10/shilajit for now ^_^

[mettmett]

Not exactly LED, but related to light in general. http://www.webmd.com...st-testosterone

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1851732/

summary: bright light positively effects hormone levels in both sexes

[xks201]

I have a hard time believing one can increase muscle mass to any significant extent without greatly increasing calories. It requires around 4k surplus calories per day to gain a pound of muscle per day. I am a hobbyist bodybuilder/powerlifter around 220 lbs at 5'11 with ~11% bodyfat and the only way I've found to pack on mass is to either increase the body's water retention(which in and of itself is anabolic) or greatly increase calories. Obviously increasing water retention requires drugs.

I bench press around 375-400lbs. Squat around 600 lbs. Deadlift is pretty weak in comparison last time I checked. I'm by no means up to any competitor level but I do find it hard to believe you'll gain any significant amount of weight with a laser or something.

the kind of gains you'd get from a laser or something could be chalked up to just about anything.

Edited by xks201, 23 September 2013 - 02:01 PM.

[phil8462643]

sorry i have not posted in a while. just wanted to think before i wrote. anyway, the led's work in my opinion. i feel more sociable and younger

[AscendantMind]

I have a hard time believing one can increase muscle mass to any significant extent without greatly increasing calories. It requires around 4k surplus calories per day to gain a pound of muscle per day.

Agreed. Muscle is composed of considerable amounts of protein, lipids, and water--among other things--and can't be generated from nothing, although I think the 4K number may be dependent on other factors.

But I do also recognize the importance of growth factors, hormones, etc. etc. In my mind, you need a combination of many beneficial factors--in terms of diet composition (4K kcals of sugar wouldn't generate muscle), supplementation, and behavior (exercise and sleep).

In any case, the trigger has already been pulled and the experiment will soon be under way. I'll post about it in the appropriate forum when done. Sorry to derail the thread, everyone.

[lostfalco]

sorry i have not posted in a while. just wanted to think before i wrote. anyway, the led's work in my opinion. i feel more sociable and younger

Thanks for reporting Phil! I appreciate it man. What dose (time/regions) has seemed to work well for you? Just the LEDs? Any supplements as well?

[BigPapaChakra]

I'll look for the study and post back later after I complete some assignments, but there was a study in women where they ate 800 calories a day and the ones who did resistance training put on lean muscle mass. I'm not saying you don't have to eat to pack on muscle, but I'm saying is, there are other sources of energy such as water, light, magnets, direct currents, etc. If you read Dr. Doug McGuff or Ellington Darden, they speak of 'super hydration' and have gained muscle by drinking massive quantities of water and quantified it through use of BodPod's, it wasn't just water weight. Dr. Kruse has spoken of the Russian cosmonaut studies where they gained bone density and lean body mass through use of magnetic fields. Dr. Peat has also spoken about Russian studies in which they used brain activity in studies on weight and that walking through sensory-stimulating areas burns a lot more fat/calories than simply walking. Calories/food are not the only sources of energy. It even makes sense that red lights can help muscle growth, it increases mitochondria/mitochondrial function and the three largest sources of mitochondria are the brain, heart, and muscle cells. I wouldn't be surprised if mitochondria in muscle cells have an intimate connection with satellite cells. That being said, this can lead down a rabbit hole of it's own, so maybe it's best not to delve into that right now, lol.

Later on I'm going to look more deeply into other forms of red light therapy, because intravenous and intranasal seem pretty awesome to me, haha. If anyone finds any information, don't hesitate to post it!

Edited by BigPapaChakra, 23 September 2013 - 07:14 PM.

[Nattzor]

I'll look for the study and post back later after I complete some assignments, but there was a study in women where they ate 800 calories a day and the ones who did resistance training put on lean muscle mass.

That was most likely because they were untrained AND obese.
And the rest you wrote I do not believe in. I want the actual studies instead of "X said so" (and I don't trust the cold thermogenic guy at all).

[lostfalco]

I'll look for the study and post back later after I complete some assignments, but there was a study in women where they ate 800 calories a day and the ones who did resistance training put on lean muscle mass. I'm not saying you don't have to eat to pack on muscle, but I'm saying is, there are other sources of energy such as water, light, magnets, direct currents, etc. If you read Dr. Doug McGuff or Ellington Darden, they speak of 'super hydration' and have gained muscle by drinking massive quantities of water and quantified it through use of BodPod's, it wasn't just water weight. Dr. Kruse has spoken of the Russian cosmonaut studies where they gained bone density and lean body mass through use of magnetic fields. Dr. Peat has also spoken about Russian studies in which they used brain activity in studies on weight and that walking through sensory-stimulating areas burns a lot more fat/calories than simply walking. Calories/food are not the only sources of energy. It even makes sense that red lights can help muscle growth, it increases mitochondria/mitochondrial function and the three largest sources of mitochondria are the brain, heart, and muscle cells. I wouldn't be surprised if mitochondria in muscle cells have an intimate connection with satellite cells. That being said, this can lead down a rabbit hole of it's own, so maybe it's best not to delve into that right now, lol.

Later on I'm going to look more deeply into other forms of red light therapy, because intravenous and intranasal seem pretty awesome to me, haha. If anyone finds any information, don't hesitate to post it!

Hey Papa, if you get chance please check out the pm I sent you on the 20th. Thanks man! :)

[AscendantMind]

there are other sources of energy such as water, light, magnets, direct currents, etc. If you read Dr. Doug McGuff or Ellington Darden, they speak of 'super hydration' and have gained muscle by drinking massive quantities of water and quantified it through use of BodPod's, it wasn't just water weight. Dr. Kruse has spoken of the Russian cosmonaut studies where they gained bone density and lean body mass through use of magnetic fields. Dr. Peat has also spoken about Russian studies in which they used brain activity in studies on weight and that walking through sensory-stimulating areas burns a lot more fat/calories than simply walking. Calories/food are not the only sources of energy. It even makes sense that red lights can help muscle growth, it increases mitochondria/mitochondrial function and the three largest sources of mitochondria are the brain, heart, and muscle cells.

Certainly light, magnets, and so forth can be sources of energy, but I am unaware of any biological processes that can turn light or magnetic fields (or water) into matter such as protein, lipid, or polysaccharide structures. It's certainly possible that those women did synthesize new muscle on only 800 calories, but only if those calories contained enough protein and they were able to use stored bodyfat for energy purposes.

As for the water intervention: I have read Dr. McGuff's book, Body by Science, and although he does spend a couple of paragraphs advocating drinking lots of water, his program is not at all about gaining muscle through water drinking alone--it is about a slow and steady cultivation of muscle through proper diet, exercise, and sufficient recovery times.

I could see magnets possibly enhancing metabolic or synthesis processes for muscle growth or bone density (though I have not seen any evidence of this).

I'll additionally specify that what I am trying to discover with these experiments is not "what works"; rather, my question is "what provides the greatest results for my biology, in the least time, with the least effort to be effective?" I doubt I would gain 20 lbs of muscle in a month with magnets.

Thus, since Dr. Kruse's work seems wildly theoretical (and difficult and time-intensive to follow--buying that much ice would probably be more expensive than all the bodybuilding supplements and protein I just bought), and I do not yet know of any specific modalities for using magnets or light for weight gain (nor what the mechanisms or results of those would be), I'll stick with more traditional approaches this time. But I will look forward to seeing evidence of other approaches, and will keep an open mind.

Edited by AscendantMind, 23 September 2013 - 08:40 PM.

[Keynes]

I'll look for the study and post back later after I complete some assignments, but there was a study in women where they ate 800 calories a day and the ones who did resistance training put on lean muscle mass.

That was most likely because they were untrained AND obese.
And the rest you wrote I do not believe in. I want the actual studies instead of "X said so" (and I don't trust the cold thermogenic guy at all).

Agreed.

On another note, sure you might might measurably increase lean muscle through magnets or the like, but I strongly doubt that it will be anything significant. Honestly, what's wrong with simply resistance training and bulking? It's by far the most simple and well tested method out there (disregarding the fact that some people seem to be non-responders to resistance training). I don't really think tulip will do anything noticeable to my muscle mass either.


http://en.wikipedia....ation_of_energy
What bodybuilders base their diets on, and it's all from oral calorie intake.

KISS, Occam's Razor and all that.

/couple of years in the gym and through reading heaps of studies in the subject. My goal btw is to get as big as possible. Also, you kind of deceive yourselves if you think that you're gonna get "too big" going to the gym without juicing, even if your other aspects (work outs, diet, sleep, supplements, genetics) are perfect. It takes a looong while and a lot of discipline to get anywhere. This belief is common amongst beginners and women + the idea that if you lift heavy you'll get big bulky shorter muscles that aren't functional ("full of air"), and if you do many lighter reps you'll get these lean long "swimmer muscles" (complete bull btw, it's all genetics. You'll probably get smaller muscles though lifting light as it's not optimal for muscle hypertrophy).

In other words, you're not gonna wake up some morning looking like Arnold if you lift heavy. Guaranteed.

Edited by Keynes, 23 September 2013 - 08:56 PM.

[xks201]

Lifting light actually was shown in a study to produce more muscle mass than lifting heavy. I see it all the time in the gym. People my height that are like 30 lbs heavier of muscle that literally can lift half of what I can. The strongest guy I know, who is a pro powerlifter, is smaller than most of the guys in my gym.

It has nothing to do with muscle size really. Genetics are key. The guy I mentioned trains natural 80% of the time. Yeah getting significantly over 200 lbs with a low bodyfat probably requires steroids, but even then not everyone responds the same to steroids. And even then training and high caloric intake are still required. You don't magically inject yourself and start training and wake up looking jacked. It's just as much work with steroids, if not more, because more variables are required to be spot on, IMO.

The top competitors in powerlifting and obviously bodybuilding and pretty much in every sport are all on performance enhancing drugs tho so like the previous poster said don't kid yourself.

Edited by xks201, 23 September 2013 - 09:02 PM.

[BigPapaChakra]

@LostFalco: Of course, about to look at it!

In regards to the muscle growth issue, I wasn't/am not trying to start an argument about what or what doesn't work, I'm just stating food is not the only source of energy, hence why we are using red lights as highly energized photons - it's light energy. Look through these:
http://www.earthpulse.net/
http://www.earthpulse.net/bone.htm
There are hundreds upon hundreds of studies. Look up the work of Robert O. Becker who has regenerated organs, limbs, cartilage, bones, etc. with use of PEMFs. Not food and nutrients, but magnetic fields. These are all published in widely known academic/science journals. If we can regenerate a limb, how can we not generate muscle? I don't follow things just because someone says it, lol. I was for awhile following all of Dr. Kruse' blogs but now I'm taking a break from ALL blogs and just doing my own research, similar to Falco. That doesn't take away from the efficacy of peoples protocols. Cold Thermogenesis is not theoretical, really, at all. Dr. Kruse just takes it to another level compared to Tim Ferriss and/or Ray Cronise; If you want less 'theoretical' information on CT, look up Ben Greenfield's articles and podcasts on it. Also, there are thousands of studies on the use of magnets, red lights, PEMFs, cold thermogenesis and cryotherapy, etc. Maybe not ALL are directed towards muscle growth, but there is nothing wrong with making extrapolations if they are educated (yes, educated extrapolations, lol). Also, there are often people that are ahead of their time and thus it's hard to put everything up against an RCT. I'll look up his paper, but one of Einstein's papers had ZERO citations and was accepted, finally years later a physicist spent 10 years trying to debunk his theory and won a nobel prize for actually proving it, lol.

Again, I'm not saying, "Hey! You go make yourself a magnetic suit, sleep on a Magnetico mattress, and shine lasers on your quads and you're gonna become JACKED!". But that doesn't mean they can't be used as an adjunct to create new satellite cells, divide muscle cells, cause hypertrophy, enhance muscular protein synthesis, etc.

[BigPapaChakra]

I'll look for the study and post back later after I complete some assignments, but there was a study in women where they ate 800 calories a day and the ones who did resistance training put on lean muscle mass.

That was most likely because they were untrained AND obese.
And the rest you wrote I do not believe in. I want the actual studies instead of "X said so" (and I don't trust the cold thermogenic guy at all).

Agreed.

On another note, sure you might might measurably increase lean muscle through magnets or the like, but I strongly doubt that it will be anything significant. Honestly, what's wrong with simply resistance training and bulking? It's by far the most simple and well tested method out there (disregarding the fact that some people seem to be non-responders to resistance training). I don't really think tulip will do anything noticeable to my muscle mass either.


http://en.wikipedia....ation_of_energy
What bodybuilders base their diets on, and it's all from oral calorie intake.

KISS, Occam's Razor and all that.

/couple of years in the gym and through reading heaps of studies in the subject. My goal btw is to get as big as possible. Also, you kind of deceive yourselves if you think that you're gonna get "too big" going to the gym without juicing, even if your other aspects (work outs, diet, sleep, supplements, genetics) are perfect. It takes a looong while and a lot of discipline to get anywhere. This belief is common amongst beginners and women + the idea that if you lift heavy you'll get big bulky shorter muscles that aren't functional ("full of air"), and if you do many lighter reps you'll get these lean long "swimmer muscles" (complete bull btw, it's all genetics. You'll probably get smaller muscles though lifting light as it's not optimal for muscle hypertrophy).

In other words, you're not gonna wake up some morning looking like Arnold if you lift heavy. Guaranteed.

I would suggest you read this paper - http://www.ncbi.nlm....cles/PMC506782/; there are MANY others like it.

I'm NOT saying eating food does not matter if you take advantage of other things, lol. You need the proper stimulus (resistance training/sprinting/extreme isometrics/etc.) applied to the foundation with added materials (fats to make up cell membranes, proteins, polysaccharides, etc.).

I'm also NOT stating that exercise should be avoided, not at all. But that doesn't mean there aren't other things that act as energy 'donors' so to speak - that's all food really is. A donation of energy from the environment to our body. I personally love resistance training but now I'm doing more minimalist style training and will probably start doing some gymnastics/parkour/MoveNat kind of activities.

[Keynes]

Lifting light actually was shown in a study to produce more muscle mass than lifting heavy. I see it all the time in the gym. People my height that are like 30 lbs heavier of muscle that literally can lift half of what I can. The strongest guy I know, who is a pro powerlifter, is smaller than most of the guys in my gym.

It has nothing to do with muscle size really. Genetics are key. The guy I mentioned trains natural 80% of the time. Yeah getting significantly over 200 lbs with a low bodyfat probably requires steroids, but even then not everyone responds the same to steroids. And even then training and high caloric intake are still required. You don't magically inject yourself and start training and wake up looking jacked. It's just as much work with steroids, if not more, because more variables are required to be spot on, IMO.

The top competitors in powerlifting and obviously bodybuilding and pretty much in every sport are all on performance enhancing drugs tho so like the previous poster said don't kid yourself.

With light-heavy I was referring to lifting at different percentages of 1 RM, for instance the difference between 7 reps @ 7 RM (or 4 @ 4 if you'd like) and 15 reps @ 25 RM. Bodybuilding and powerlifting imo not really comparable since the goals and training regimens are so different. As a counter example I trained in the same gym as the best Olympic lifter in Sweden (will compete in 2016 if everything goes as planned). He's huge and has a great body. But like you say that doesn't have to be the case to be able to lift heavy (now referring to weight).

[xks201]

BigPapa I agree that I'm sure there are undiscovered principles that could help with muscle mass but for all practical purposes at this moment I don't think the alternatives to high calories and lifting are there to generate significant muscle mass.

[mettmett]

alright guys lets remember why we are all here

[AscendantMind]

alright guys lets remember why we are all here

Yeah, sorry for the derailment.

[nuc]

The body builds enough muscle to sustain the way you live if you eat food. There is no point adding something you won't be using. Life is too short.

[Strangelove]

I am afraid, as of this time, I did not have any positive results, I want to believe there is an issue with the wrong power adapter. The mA provided are 3 times the specifications, and contrary to the logic that the LED's would just use as much energy they need (and not more, changing the output) I definitely know that this may not be the case.

I had to cut the cables to connect the LED's with the adapter and now is kind of unusable. I am going to search for new LEDs and adapter, if anyone has found something online that would work in E.U please give a link!

[lostfalco]

Thanks to everyone for all their thoughts on mass building, exercise protocols, body recomp, etc.! Those are fascinating topics but my main focus right now is brain enhancement/optimization. I'm preparing a massive post (dozens and dozens of pubmed studies) on ATP, Myosin II, Actin, LLLT, etc. and their role in muscle formation. I'll let you guys know if/when I post it (in a new thread that will NOT have 'tulip' in the name...3 tulip threads are obnoxious enough. ha).

Back to the brain...I have been focusing on Happy CIL-TULIP (cheesy, I know) for the past month or so. So far, it's been amazing (ya know, ymmv). Here are the main substances. I'm still working on precise dosages, timings, and brands and would love any input that you guys have!
1. PQQ/CoQ10/Shilajit/LEDs
2. Artichoke Extract
3. DHA
4. Choline (CDP mostly)
5. Uridine (sublingual UMP)
6. Folate

I have also been researching and experimenting a little with
1. nucleotides/DNA/RNA supplements (uridine is obviously one already)
2. Sulfur (bioavailable MSM)
3. glandulars (Basically, raw organ meats in capsule form. Be VERY careful with these..mad cow and toxin warnings cannot be stated too emphatically.)
4. hypoxic upregulation of endogenous EPO
5. Neurofeedback

How is everyone else doing with their stacks? Any amazing additions that I've missed? Subtractions? Thanks everyone. Crowd sourcing and discussion are SO much better than arguments and egoistic individualism. I appreciate all of you guys' work! =)

Edited by lostfalco, 24 September 2013 - 12:36 PM.

[Olorin]

I was looking for information on LLLT and testosterone levels, and found the following rat-study: http://biomedres.inf...y.357194742.pdf

They found significantly higher testosterone levels after treatment with a 670-nm diode laser, but the results with the 808-nm laser worries me:
"In the 808 nm wavelength group, there were such findings as an atrophy of the seminiferous tubules, disarrangement of sertoli cells, generation of giant multinucleated bodies and other deformities."

This was 360 J/cm2/day (200mW x 30min) so could the negative results simply be caused by overdoing it? Why wouldn't a scientist think of this, and try the experiment with shorter treatment periods?

I'm using a 808-nm laser too, but only for about 30 seconds on each spot.

[Strangelove]

Lostfalco probably you have seen it, but if not, you may want to check this out

http://www.amazon.co..._hu-rd_add_1_dp

Although you probably know more than the author by now... it seems there are quite a few applications for LLLT

Also for the person thinking that an ear application might be useful

http://low-level-las...ser-vityas.html

Edited by Strangelove, 24 September 2013 - 02:56 PM.

[Strangelove]

Lostfalco does a great job trying to see the big picture of how LLLT works, there are seem to be a quite a few variables for the laser treatment part of TULIP, and even the mechanism of how LLLT has its effects is currently unknown, although there is speculation.

Anyone that has the time, inclination, money... Could check this
http://www.amazon.co...l light therapy

Also have in mind that power specifications of LEDs could play a role in output. I have tried a handheld massager with two different adapters, I managed to find, and with the low input would just move, and with the right one would be okey. This of course is common sense, but as...

The effects of LLLT appear to be limited to a specified set of wavelengths of laser,^[3] (Wikipedia)

From my limited knowledge, even the different Hz, 50 Hz in Europe and Asia, 60 Hz North and sound America, could possibly make a difference in the wavelength. My knowledge from highschool's physic classes some years ago are not helpful, anyone can tell for sure? Also, what about the difference in Ambers? Voltage could change the wavelength in a regular lamp, (if I understand correctly the photoelectric effect).

[swen]

I've lasered the last time the day before yesterday (1 minute per spot), and today I've experienced a spaced out feeling, i was very "light" in my head. Anyone experienced the same?

[Strangelove]

I am looking in new options except the LEDs in ebay, Lostfalco you mentioned that wavelength and power is what is important, do you have specifics? Thanks!

[lostfalco]

Yessir!

SHORT SUMMARY:

" In summary, NIr treatment reduced the oxidative stress caused by the tau transgene in the SNc of K3 mice and saved SNc cells from degeneration. Our results, when taken together with those in other models, strengthen the notion that NIr treatment saves dopaminergic cells in the parkinsonian condition."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23998985

LONG SUMMARY (skip if busy):

Abstract
We have examined whether near-infrared light (NIr) treatment mitigates oxidative stress and increased expression of hyperphosphorylated tau in a tau transgenic mouse strain (K3) that has a progressive degeneration of dopaminergic cells in the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNc). The brains of wild-type (WT), untreated K3 and NIr-treated K3 mice, aged five months (thus after the onset of parkinsonian signs and neuropathology), were labelled immunohistochemically for the oxidative stress markers 4-hydroxynonenal (4-HNE) and 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHDG), hyperphosphorylated tau (using the AT8 antibody) and tyrosine hydroxylase (TH). The average intensity and area of 4-HNE, 8-OHDG and AT8 immunoreactivity were measured using the MetaMorph software and TH⁺ cell number was estimated using stereology. Our results showed immunoreactivity for 4-HNE, 8-OHDG and AT8 within the SNc was increased in K3 mice compared to WT, and that this increase was mitigated by NIr. Results further showed that TH⁺ cell number was lower in K3 mice than in WT, and that this loss was mitigated by NIr. In summary, NIr treatment reduced the oxidative stress caused by the tau transgene in the SNc of K3 mice and saved SNc cells from degeneration. Our results, when taken together with those in other models, strengthen the notion that NIr treatment saves dopaminergic cells in the parkinsonian condition.
Article Outline

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Results
• 
  
  • 2.1. NIr reduced markers of oxidative stress
  • 2.2. NIr reduced the overexpression of hyperphosphorylated tau
  • 2.3. NIr mitigated the loss of dopaminergic cells in K3 mice
• 3. Discussion
• 
  
  • 3.1. Comparison with previous studies
  • 3.2. Comparison with other models of Parkinson's disease
  • 3.3. The saving of dopaminergic cells by NIr: rescue and protection?
  • 3.4. Mechanism of action: how does NIr save dopaminergic cells?
  • 3.5. Conclusions
• 4. Experimental procedures
• 
  
  • 4.1. Mouse model
  • 4.2. Experimental design
  • 4.3. NIr treatment
  • 4.4. Immunocytochemistry
  • 4.5. Analysis
  • 4.6. Statistics

Edited by lostfalco, 25 September 2013 - 01:37 AM.