4 years of Pufa Detox

[EnoreeG]

Some pretty sad stuff in this thread. If you're gonna challenge basic science get yourself some damn sources. Tanning is a well-known reaction. You can't eat vitamin D and affect your tanning; these are separate. If the sun is beaming down at you all day and you haven't evolved to build houses yet, then you need melanin to shield cells from the sun.

I'm all in favour of basic science explanations, when they do a good job of explaining the available data.
So what's your scientific explanation for the changes people have described above?
Does 'basic science' have an explanation for why some people's ability/propensity to burn or tan can change?
(Or has 'basic science' not yet got around to investigating this very thoroughly yet)?

Yes, science is adequately explaining why melanin is produced and how vitamin D is produced. As far as melanin goes, it is pretty straight forward that people with less burn more easily and people with more burn less easily. People are proposing here that the affects of UVB on cholesterol - which creates Vitamin D - is stopping people from burning. If you're gonna propose a scientific mechanism from something you think you've felt, then you need to provide references.

I actually searched at length for a study on vitamin D levels raising resistance to sunburn. Nothing shows up. Science is still bogged down with testing more on how vitamin D actually works in the body, since they've fairly well resolved how it is produced.

I don't see that many comments here claimed there was science yet showing how/why vitamin D levels protect from the sun. The comments are mostly about how there seems to be a definite association between raising the intake of a supplement and an observed lengthening of resistance to sunburn. People, being ever so intelligent, can profit from observations, and have evolved better and better methods for this, including making notes of observations.

This happened way before science was invented, and persists as a far quicker, fresher way to learn something than waiting on science. Obviously, if people find that there are exceptions to this "D protection" rule, they will change their behavior, and their reports to others. Right now, the reports seem to agree there is a protective effect. The fact that science has arrived on the scene, and that science warns against "placebo" effects and statistical skewing doesn't negate the fact that humans can safely and reliably trust their senses, especially as suppositions are verified by additional n=1 reports. I say at this point, scientific proof of the "D protection" effect, and of course the physiological pathway, is relatively unnecessary.

Here's a few more confirmations of the protective effect of supplemental D against sunburn:

http://thatpaleoguy.com/2010/04/21/vitamin-d-protective-against-sunburn/

Oxidation - it would be nice to see your scientific backing for the claim:

You can't eat vitamin D and affect your tanning; these are separate.

Here's proof from several years ago that there are many things you CAN eat that affect sun protection:

http://www.dr-baumann-international...ection against Skin Damage from Sun Light.pdf

For instance, supplementation with a combination of vitamins C and E raise the minimum time before a specific level of sunburn by 80% in one study. Even EPA (an omega-3 derivative) provided protection by itself, and a heavy dose of fish oil (10 gm/day!) more than doubled the time before even a slight sign of sunburn appeared (redness). Protection from vitamin D therefore, is quite possible.

 

[johns74]

You can't eat vitamin D and affect your tanning; these are separate.

Citation?

 

[tara]

Some pretty sad stuff in this thread. If you're gonna challenge basic science get yourself some damn sources. Tanning is a well-known reaction. You can't eat vitamin D and affect your tanning; these are separate. If the sun is beaming down at you all day and you haven't evolved to build houses yet, then you need melanin to shield cells from the sun.

I'm all in favour of basic science explanations, when they do a good job of explaining the available data.
So what's your scientific explanation for the changes people have described above?
Does 'basic science' have an explanation for why some people's ability/propensity to burn or tan can change?
(Or has 'basic science' not yet got around to investigating this very thoroughly yet)?

Yes, science is adequately explaining why melanin is produced and how vitamin D is produced. As far as melanin goes, it is pretty straight forward that people with less burn more easily and people with more burn less easily. People are proposing here that the affects of UVB on cholesterol - which creates Vitamin D - is stopping people from burning. If you're gonna propose a scientific mechanism from something you think you've felt, then you need to provide references.

I accept that melanin protects against burning. I do not accept that it is demonstrated that this is the only factor involved.
I am not proposing any scientific mechanism. I am asking you to address the discrepancy between your dogmatic statement of theory and the reality as observed by previous posters. You have not yet addressed this: some people above observe that they either tan more quickly or burn more slowly at different times. Some have proposed a hypothesis. I don't know how strong the evidence is for that hypothesis. I do think that if several people have independently observed a similar phenomenon, then something is going on.
To say that it can't be happening because it conflicts with the theory strikes me as anti-scientific.

Another related question would be: why do people produce melanin more readily at some times than at other times, given lots of sunshine stimulus?

 

[oxidation_is_normal]

OK have fun eating vitamin D to protect you from the sun, but we don't need cites to see why that's silly.

In accordance with my above statements: why some people burn more than others is a fine question.

 

[tara]

OK have fun eating vitamin D to protect you from the sun, but we don't need cites to see why that's silly.

In accordance with my above statements: why some people burn more than others is a fine question.

OK, have fun avoiding the question.

 

[oxidation_is_normal]

OK, have fun avoiding the question.

Sounds passive aggressive, but I'm guessing you mean your question: "why do people produce melanin more readily at some times than at other times, given lots of sunshine stimulus?"

Based on the relationship between melatonin and melanin, I'm guessing sleep and related things could affect melanin production. Recovery is another factor (just based on the fact that if your skin peels you lose at least some of the tan of that area). Another factor is previous exposure. If you got tanned in an area recently, then it's recovery will be quicker and it will tan "better."
This is a good article: http://physrev.physiology.org/content/p ... 1.full.pdf

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Do you know what the mechanism of protection is? Are there any studies behind it?

Not him, but Peat has mentioned that Vit D deficiency prevents tanning. Doesn't affect sunburn immediately, but he is half right.

Well, tanning is an adaptive response to stress (burning) so wouldn't we want to avoid it? Is that an argument against vitamin D?
I am assuming that ideally one would want neither tanning nor burning.

Muscle hypertrophy is an adaptive response to stress. Would we want to avoid it?

Muscle hypertrophy - no - because it leads to increased metabolism. It is also very trophic for the brain. What health benefits of getting tanned can you suggest?

If your muscles won't grow in response to stimulus, there probably something seriously wrong. Tanning is an appropriate reaction to sunlight, avoiding vit D to prevent appropriate protective reactions is absurd. There is an argument to be made that you should optimally replace sunlight with red light therapy, though.

 

[johns74]

OK have fun eating vitamin D to protect you from the sun, but we don't need cites to see why that's silly.

In accordance with my above statements: why some people burn more than others is a fine question.

So you don't have a source showing that tanning is independent of the vitamin D content, but state it without evidence, just to be anti science?

 

[oxidation_is_normal]

OK have fun eating vitamin D to protect you from the sun, but we don't need cites to see why that's silly.

In accordance with my above statements: why some people burn more than others is a fine question.

So you don't have a source showing that tanning is independent of the vitamin D content, but state it without evidence, just to be anti science?

The burden of evidence isn't on me. Oral vitamin D changing how you tan would be a new discovery.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Quick googling suggest that vitamin D deficiency leads to p53 down-regulation, and that lead to weak tanning response.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427653/

http://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.as ... id=2181693

http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092 ... all%3Dtrue

You kind of gotta go looking at this via cancer research, since people are looking at the relationship between p53 and vit D in relation to cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081446/

 

[narouz]

Quick googling suggest that vitamin D deficiency leads to p53 down-regulation, and that lead to weak tanning response.

I remember Peat saying, I think in an interview,
that he'd known of people who couldn't tan normally,
and they'd fixed it by taking some vitamin D.

 

[EnoreeG]

Quick googling suggest that vitamin D deficiency leads to p53 down-regulation, and that lead to weak tanning response.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427653/

http://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.as ... id=2181693

http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092 ... all%3Dtrue

You kind of gotta go looking at this via cancer research, since people are looking at the relationship between p53 and vit D in relation to cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081446/

Great new information Hugh. Not sure what it all means. I see the p53 connection to increased melanin formation in the first link, and the fact that vitamin D, by increasing apoptosis can get rid of cells before they might turn cancerous, or of the cancer cells themselves, in the 2nd link, and how that is facilitated by the p53. (Love it's side-note that the toxic effects of D include causing hypercalcemia! We all need that warning). At this point, I saw only that vitamin D could "protect" from the sun only by helping generate more melanin, or by helping with the damaging effects by reducing cancer risk. Nothing on actually reducing the initial "burning" before melanin was formed for protection. That is the claim that some of us are making based on first hand experience.

The 3rd link sort of confirms the p53 features stated in the 1st link as I read it.

Your last link was really a fantastic document to explain all the ways that vitamin D helps protect against cancer, and quite a recommendation for getting enough sunlight on one's skin.

However, back to the exact point that some of us have been addressing --

You originally said

Not him, but Peat has mentioned that Vit D deficiency prevents tanning. Doesn't affect sunburn immediately, but he is half right.

which I take as a great contrast between saying vitamin D aids tanning, and affects sunburn immediately (before the tan has protected you). They are two different things.

I think the studies you've presented here are sufficient to show proof that oxidation_is-normal said he needed on vitamin D augmenting tanning:

Some pretty sad stuff in this thread. If you're gonna challenge basic science get yourself some damn sources. Tanning is a well-known reaction. You can't eat vitamin D and affect your tanning; these are separate. If the sun is beaming down at you all day and you haven't evolved to build houses yet, then you need melanin to shield cells from the sun.

The other "half" that you admitted that Peat (and these links) don't address is the claim that Dean made

I have my first tan in many years right now....

Was kind of excited to be able to tan again and attributed it to 4 months of VLF diet, but perhaps it was the few months of the more than usual Vitamin D supplementation I did for a few months this winter, or perhaps it was using red light for the first time?

and that I made, that vitamin D very likely gives immediate protection from the sun, before a tan developed. That reddening is slowed. This claim, as "oxidation_" points out is still not supported by a scientific study that we can find:

As far as melanin goes, it is pretty straight forward that people with less burn more easily and people with more burn less easily. People are proposing here that the affects of UVB on cholesterol - which creates Vitamin D - is stopping people from burning. If you're gonna propose a scientific mechanism from something you think you've felt, then you need to provide references.

On the other hand, neither is his claim that vitamin D can NOT give immediate protection supported by a scientific study. Thank goodness we still have our senses and don't have to depend on science for all input. We can intelligently make decisions while we wait for science.

While we wait, I suggest people might notice if supplemental vitamin D can delay the burning effects of the sun in your particular case. If the delay is significant, you will notice it. As I cited before, there is already proof that certain antioxidants (carotenoids, tocopherols, ascorbate, flavonoids,) as well as n-3 fatty acids give this delay, thus protection from burning, so why isn't it possible that vitamin D does the same?:

http://www.dr-baumann-international.co. ... 0Light.pdf

 

[haidut]

Quick googling suggest that vitamin D deficiency leads to p53 down-regulation, and that lead to weak tanning response.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427653/

http://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.as ... id=2181693

http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092 ... all%3Dtrue

You kind of gotta go looking at this via cancer research, since people are looking at the relationship between p53 and vit D in relation to cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081446/

Great new information Hugh. Not sure what it all means. I see the p53 connection to increased melanin formation in the first link, and the fact that vitamin D, by increasing apoptosis can get rid of cells before they might turn cancerous, or of the cancer cells themselves, in the 2nd link, and how that is facilitated by the p53. (Love it's side-note that the toxic effects of D include causing hypercalcemia! We all need that warning). At this point, I saw only that vitamin D could "protect" from the sun only by helping generate more melanin, or by helping with the damaging effects by reducing cancer risk. Nothing on actually reducing the initial "burning" before melanin was formed for protection. That is the claim that some of us are making based on first hand experience.

The 3rd link sort of confirms the p53 features stated in the 1st link as I read it.

Your last link was really a fantastic document to explain all the ways that vitamin D helps protect against cancer, and quite a recommendation for getting enough sunlight on one's skin.

However, back to the exact point that some of us have been addressing --

You originally said

Not him, but Peat has mentioned that Vit D deficiency prevents tanning. Doesn't affect sunburn immediately, but he is half right.

which I take as a great contrast between saying vitamin D aids tanning, and affects sunburn immediately (before the tan has protected you). They are two different things.

I think the studies you've presented here are sufficient to show proof that oxidation_is-normal said he needed on vitamin D augmenting tanning:

Some pretty sad stuff in this thread. If you're gonna challenge basic science get yourself some damn sources. Tanning is a well-known reaction. You can't eat vitamin D and affect your tanning; these are separate. If the sun is beaming down at you all day and you haven't evolved to build houses yet, then you need melanin to shield cells from the sun.

The other "half" that you admitted that Peat (and these links) don't address is the claim that Dean made

I have my first tan in many years right now....

Was kind of excited to be able to tan again and attributed it to 4 months of VLF diet, but perhaps it was the few months of the more than usual Vitamin D supplementation I did for a few months this winter, or perhaps it was using red light for the first time?

and that I made, that vitamin D very likely gives immediate protection from the sun, before a tan developed. That reddening is slowed. This claim, as "oxidation_" points out is still not supported by a scientific study that we can find:

As far as melanin goes, it is pretty straight forward that people with less burn more easily and people with more burn less easily. People are proposing here that the affects of UVB on cholesterol - which creates Vitamin D - is stopping people from burning. If you're gonna propose a scientific mechanism from something you think you've felt, then you need to provide references.

On the other hand, neither is his claim that vitamin D can NOT give immediate protection supported by a scientific study. Thank goodness we still have our senses and don't have to depend on science for all input. We can intelligently make decisions while we wait for science.

While we wait, I suggest people might notice if supplemental vitamin D can delay the burning effects of the sun in your particular case. If the delay is significant, you will notice it. As I cited before, there is already proof that certain antioxidants (carotenoids, tocopherols, ascorbate, flavonoids,) as well as n-3 fatty acids give this delay, thus protection from burning, so why isn't it possible that vitamin D does the same?:

http://www.dr-baumann-international.co. ... 0Light.pdf

I just wanted to point out that the effect of vitamin D on hypercalcemia is definitely something to keep in mind in relation to vitamin A. It has been known for decades that vitamin A protects from vitamin D toxicity, in part by inhibiting sort-tissue calcification. Recently I posted a study in rodents showing that co-administration of vitamin A with vitamin D abolished its hypercalcemic effect and increased serum phosphate (not pathologically though). This makes sense as typically calcium and phosphorus are inversely correlated in serum.
What I don't understand is why there are literally hundreds of epidemiological studies claiming that it is vitamin A that has hypercalcemic effect and it would dissolve bones or something.
Can someone please chime in with their experience and knowledge? I certainly view isolated vitamin D3 supplementation as potentially risky due to hypercalcemia, and most of the human trials with vitamin D3 showed this side effect, in addition to a null result. So, which one is it that cause hypercalcemia. Based on their action in the cell it does not look likely that both vitamins do.

 

[EnoreeG]

I just wanted to point out that the effect of vitamin D on hypercalcemia is definitely something to keep in mind in relation to vitamin A. It has been known for decades that vitamin A protects from vitamin D toxicity, in part by inhibiting sort-tissue calcification. Recently I posted a study in rodents showing that co-administration of vitamin A with vitamin D abolished its hypercalcemic effect and increased serum phosphate (not pathologically though). This makes sense as typically calcium and phosphorus are inversely correlated in serum.
What I don't understand is why there are literally hundreds of epidemiological studies claiming that it is vitamin A that has hypercalcemic effect and it would dissolve bones or something.
Can someone please chime in with their experience and knowledge? I certainly view isolated vitamin D3 supplementation as potentially risky due to hypercalcemia, and most of the human trials with vitamin D3 showed this side effect, in addition to a null result. So, which one is it that cause hypercalcemia. Based on their action in the cell it does not look likely that both vitamins do.

A good field to research, haidut! While we're inviting investigation, I'd like to also ask for knowledge on how magnesium and boron help lessen or avoid hypercalcemia. Are they independent factors from vitamin A and D, or are they all mutually related and need all to be considered and balanced? That I know of, Peat doesn't address the Mg/B/Ca connection, does he? We might have to look elsewhere.

 

[haidut]

I just wanted to point out that the effect of vitamin D on hypercalcemia is definitely something to keep in mind in relation to vitamin A. It has been known for decades that vitamin A protects from vitamin D toxicity, in part by inhibiting sort-tissue calcification. Recently I posted a study in rodents showing that co-administration of vitamin A with vitamin D abolished its hypercalcemic effect and increased serum phosphate (not pathologically though). This makes sense as typically calcium and phosphorus are inversely correlated in serum.
What I don't understand is why there are literally hundreds of epidemiological studies claiming that it is vitamin A that has hypercalcemic effect and it would dissolve bones or something.
Can someone please chime in with their experience and knowledge? I certainly view isolated vitamin D3 supplementation as potentially risky due to hypercalcemia, and most of the human trials with vitamin D3 showed this side effect, in addition to a null result. So, which one is it that cause hypercalcemia. Based on their action in the cell it does not look likely that both vitamins do.

A good field to research, haidut! While we're inviting investigation, I'd like to also ask for knowledge on how magnesium and boron help lessen or avoid hypercalcemia. Are they independent factors from vitamin A and D, or are they all mutually related and need all to be considered and balanced? That I know of, Peat doesn't address the Mg/B/Ca connection, does he? We might have to look elsewhere.

He does talk some about them but has not tied the explicitly I think. He says all the alkaline minerals can fill in for each other to an extent. He also said calcium excites intestinal cells while magnesium reverses that effect. He also told someone over email that he thinks boron is mostly important for plants but not so much for humans.
I know that magnesium at least does not have much info in terms of effects on plasma calcium, but has studies backing its protective effects on soft-tissue calcificaion. The latter is to be expected since magnesium is a calcium channel blocker and NMDA antagonist.
Anyways, I would be very interested in hearing other view points.

 

[tara]

He also told someone over email that he thinks boron is mostly important for plants but not so much for humans.

I remember this, but interpreted it differently.
I thought Peat meant that because boron is essential for plants (ie they can't grow without it), we will inevitably be getting some boron by eating plants, and it is likely to be enough that we don't need to supplement.

I took that as consistent with boron being essential for humans, and that there might be a deficiency problem if we tried to live primarily on refined carbs that have the boron taken out (along with other essentials like potassium and magnesium). But if we eat the other foods he recommends to get all our other nutrient needs met (eg plant food, maybe liver), we should be fine for boron too.

 

[BingDing]

The email was quoted in this thread

I asked Ray about it and he said the following

Plants need it. I don't think people should have any more of it than they get from foods.

Wish he would've expanded on the reasoning but perhaps it is somewhat useful while one is hypo, not so much in good health

In the last post haidut says boron is highly estrogenic.

 

[EnoreeG]

The email was quoted in this thread

I asked Ray about it and he said the following

Plants need it. I don't think people should have any more of it than they get from foods.

Wish he would've expanded on the reasoning but perhaps it is somewhat useful while one is hypo, not so much in good health

In the last post haidut says boron is highly estrogenic.

Ray doesn't say much about it, but there's a lot out there about Boron if you search outside of Peat:

http://www.health-science-spirit.com/borax.htm

I'm surprised Peat doesn't have quite a bit to say about boron, considering this says it is critical to parathyroid operation. Also, if Peat assumes humans get sufficient boron from food, it seems he isn't addressing the possibility that it's in the food, but not absorbed due to gut issues or mineral binding by things such as phytate, glyphosate (Roundup) etc.

I do a lot of organic gardening and I test my soil and then apply minerals according to the test results. Boron always tests a bit low and I'm always adding it in micro-quantities. It seems that soils can definitely be deficient in boron, and plants grow, but suffer in the process. It is definitely an essential mineral for plants, but also one that is a poison if you aren't careful and add too much.

Maybe we need a couple of new topics here? One on the fat-soluble vitamins connection to calcium/phosphorus and one asking for information on the boron/magnesium/calcium connection. These subjects seem to be somewhat independent of "PUFA detox", though obviously, I'm not going to say that anything is independent of anything else here.....

 

[Tom]

I just wanted to point out that the effect of vitamin D on hypercalcemia is definitely something to keep in mind in relation to vitamin A. It has been known for decades that vitamin A protects from vitamin D toxicity, in part by inhibiting sort-tissue calcification. Recently I posted a study in rodents showing that co-administration of vitamin A with vitamin D abolished its hypercalcemic effect and increased serum phosphate (not pathologically though). This makes sense as typically calcium and phosphorus are inversely correlated in serum.
What I don't understand is why there are literally hundreds of epidemiological studies claiming that it is vitamin A that has hypercalcemic effect and it would dissolve bones or something.
Can someone please chime in with their experience and knowledge? I certainly view isolated vitamin D3 supplementation as potentially risky due to hypercalcemia, and most of the human trials with vitamin D3 showed this side effect, in addition to a null result. So, which one is it that cause hypercalcemia. Based on their action in the cell it does not look likely that both vitamins do.

I think Fred Kummerow talked about studies showing atherosclerosis caused by vitamin D supplementation. (I bring him up because he was mentioned in the latest Herb Doctor show and will also (it seems) be featured in the Ray Peat inspired documentary.)

I think whenever a nutrient is supplemented in far higher dosage than what is found in a normal diet, in nature, in human milk etc, one should be a little bit cautious. Then it acts more like a drug. I suppose most americans these days are deficient in various nutrients, for example the b-vitamins. Conducting trials on such people could show benefit of high dosage b-vitamins. The question is what will happen for individuals that are not deficient.

Vitamin D is mainly a nutrient found in marine foods from species eating algae.

According to nutritiondata 2000 kcal human milk has 120 IU vitamin D and 6000 IU of vitamin A, so a 50:1 ratio. 2000 kcal eggs (28 eggs) would have 7000 IU vitamin A and 500 IU vitamin D. Vitamin A can be found abundantly in nature, but not vitamin D, unless one eat a ton of fatty fish.

Perhaps a reason why vitamin D is effective is that people are calcium deficient due to a too "acidic" diet with too much phosphorus and too little fruits and vegetables.

 

[EnoreeG]

The email was quoted in this thread

I asked Ray about it and he said the following

Plants need it. I don't think people should have any more of it than they get from foods.

Wish he would've expanded on the reasoning but perhaps it is somewhat useful while one is hypo, not so much in good health

In the last post haidut says boron is highly estrogenic.

Ray doesn't say much about it, but there's a lot out there about Boron if you search outside of Peat:

http://www.health-science-spirit.com/borax.htm

I'm surprised Peat doesn't have quite a bit to say about boron, considering this says it is critical to parathyroid operation. Also, if Peat assumes humans get sufficient boron from food, it seems he isn't addressing the possibility that it's in the food, but not absorbed due to gut issues or mineral binding by things such as phytate, glyphosate (Roundup) etc.

I do a lot of organic gardening and I test my soil and then apply minerals according to the test results. Boron always tests a bit low and I'm always adding it in micro-quantities. It seems that soils can definitely be deficient in boron, and plants grow, but suffer in the process. It is definitely an essential mineral for plants, but also one that is a poison if you aren't careful and add too much.

Maybe we need a couple of new topics here? One on the fat-soluble vitamins connection to calcium/phosphorus and one asking for information on the boron/magnesium/calcium connection. These subjects seem to be somewhat independent of "PUFA detox", though obviously, I'm not going to say that anything is independent of anything else here.....

To continue, and add: Here's Peat on everything BUT boron -- I found this interesting in that parathyroid hormone is involved (PTH):

(from http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/milk.shtml)

When there is adequate calcium, vitamin D, and magnesium in the diet, PTH is kept to a minimum. When PTH is kept low, cells increase their formation of the uncoupling proteins, that cause mitochondria to use energy at a higher rate, and this is associated with decreased activity of the fatty acid synthase enzymes.

These changes are clearly related to the anti-obesity effect of calcium, but those enzymes are important for many other problems.

The “metabolic syndrome,” that involves diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, is associated with high PTH (Ahlström, et al., 2009; Hjelmesaeth, et al., 2009).

So health is marked by minimal PTH, which in turn is possible only via adequate calcium, vitamin D and magnesium in the diet. This is the way to avoid the "metabolic syndrome" symptoms. Peat suggests milk is the solution. I don't drink milk because of reactions to it, but I do eat hard cheese, and lots of green leafy veggies which supply the calcium/magnesium. Peat is not nearly so strong on the adequacy of human gut microbes to process leafy greens as he is on ruminants' guts to do this, but he does say

The chemist Norman Pirie argued convincingly that leaf protein had much higher nutritional value than grain and bean proteins, and that it had the potential to be much more efficient economically, if it could be separated from the less desirable components of leaves.

The amino acid composition and nutritional value of leaf protein is similar to milk protein, which is understandable since cows produce milk from the amino acids produced in their rumens by bacteria digesting the leaves the cows have eaten. The bacteria perform the refining processes that Pirie believed could be done technologically, and they also degrade or detoxify the major toxins and allergens.