This 6-pillar curriculum teaches the basic literacy we need to be personally and financially successful and to do so in a manner in which together we evolve a culture that supports the emergence of an advanced human civilization.
Food Series: Changing the Food Paradigm to Nutrient Density
with Dan Kittredge
“Our vision here is to go through step by step, crop by crop, looking at the nutrient levels in the food, looking at the environmental conditions, looking at the human health connections and being able to come up with a basic definition of good and bad.”
Dan Kittredge, founder and executive director of the Bionutrient Food Association, discusses a potential breakthrough that could change the focus of the food system to nutrient density.
There are so many things wrong with this idea that it’s hard to know where to start.
99% of the struggles people have with their health can be solved just by changing their diet on a macro level away from processed high-carb seed-oil-laden foods to a Weston A Price Foundation diet, or better still an animal-based ketogenic diet for optimum health. Grow what they can in their back yard and buy the rest direct from a local farmer where possible or a local farmer’s market and ideally organic if they can afford it.
Look for farmers who get the basics right, who do not use sprays, who use livestock in the rotation for fertility, who graze their livestock holistically through diverse pastures with trees and hedgerows to browse so they can self-medicate, 100% grass-fed. You will have beautiful nutrient-dense food – you don’t need a gadget to tell you. Dan even said so himself – go for flavour as that’s the most healthy, in other words, we have a natural ability to know what is good for us.
Trying to quantify and then accurately measure nutrient density shows a lack of understanding of what food provides us with. Every farm, every field, every day, every season, every animal, every plant is different. Alive soils change dynamically all the time. The soil life cycle, the angle to the sun hitting the ground or the plant or the animal’s back, means everything is imbued with a unique light signature and has a unique charge.
This means that all living things collect information from the frequency of sunlight that it, or the plant it ate, used to photosynthesise and/or directly charge its water battery with the sun on its skin (that includes us). This is a unique barcode – literally every blade of grass will have as unique a barcode of sunlight energy as every snowflake is unique.
When we eat food that barcode information is ‘read’ by our cells and our bodies use it to assimilate to our environment in a harmonic resonance. Such that when we eat out of season, or a food grown on a far-flung continent with a totally different light profile, we cause dissonance as our food is giving us information that does not resonate with what we are experiencing in our local environment. The recent interview with Nathan Styles on Solari covered some of this.
The work of Robert O Becker and, more recently, Prof Gerald Pollack has shown us (and Ulrike at Solari has covered in her beautiful series on health) we are electrical beings and it is our charge, first and foremost, not our material atoms or molecules, that give us health and vitality. Water has memory and holds that informational sunlight signature.
Spectroscopy can only measure the signatures of matter (molecules), not of what the water memory is holding or the charge of the plant or animal product.
What Dan is doing sounds great on the surface but it is clear that we know much more now than just looking at the physical matter of what things are made of. It is their resonance and charge that are key for their health-giving (or not) properties.
Furthermore, I found it somewhat disingenuous for Dan to say there is no difference in nutrient levels in organic food compared to non-organic. There are many studies to show that there are and, more importantly, it’s what the organic food does not contain that is important eg those heavy metals, pesticide residues, glyphosate, etc
I also take issue with Dan suggesting that using a refractrometer will give you a proxy for nutrient density. This is false. A refractometer measures brix, which is primarily a measure of sugar levels. Sugar levels are not a proxy for nutrients. Many of our fruits and vegetables have been bred to be sweeter over the past 50 years and to the detriment of nutrients – vitamins, minerals, polyphenols, etc.
Plus, the time of day, the season, the temperature, etc that the plant is harvested make a huge difference to brix levels: at mid day in full sun and plenty of moisture the plant will be rapidly photosynthesising and the sap will contain high levels of sugars. So the brix will read high but the levels of nutrients will be the same as if that plant was harvested in a cloudy day or under drought stress. Yet, on the shelf a refractrometer will tell you to buy the high-sugar option – this is not a proxy for nutrients!
Then we come to the point where Dan is saying how they could announce on social media where, for example, the highest nutrient (highest-sugar!) blueberries were for sale this week, I think could be extremely divisive and might end up in court. Does Dan care how this could impact small farmers trying to do the right thing?
And worse, Dan is talking about defining what should be in every food (or at least 20 of the main staple foods). What if they get it wrong (per what I have described above) or the big boys start genetically engineering their food to give the right signals that says it’s the best one to buy but it won’t be.
This sort of gadget has many questions and potential downsides and will only make people more stressed and neurotic about what to buy – it’s the last thing people need.
There is just so much wrong with this. The 25 million dollars he seeks would be better spent supporting small local community farms.
There are so many things wrong with this idea that it’s hard to know where to start.
99% of the struggles people have with their health can be solved just by changing their diet on a macro level away from processed high-carb seed-oil-laden foods to a Weston A Price Foundation diet, or better still an animal-based ketogenic diet for optimum health. Grow what they can in their back yard and buy the rest direct from a local farmer where possible or a local farmer’s market and ideally organic if they can afford it.
Look for farmers who get the basics right, who do not use sprays, who use livestock in the rotation for fertility, who graze their livestock holistically through diverse pastures with trees and hedgerows to browse so they can self-medicate, 100% grass-fed. You will have beautiful nutrient-dense food – you don’t need a gadget to tell you. Dan even said so himself – go for flavour as that’s the most healthy, in other words, we have a natural ability to know what is good for us.
Trying to quantify and then accurately measure nutrient density shows a lack of understanding of what food provides us with. Every farm, every field, every day, every season, every animal, every plant is different. Alive soils change dynamically all the time. The soil life cycle, the angle to the sun hitting the ground or the plant or the animal’s back, means everything is imbued with a unique light signature and has a unique charge.
This means that all living things collect information from the frequency of sunlight that it, or the plant it ate, used to photosynthesise and/or directly charge its water battery with the sun on its skin (that includes us). This is a unique barcode – literally every blade of grass will have as unique a barcode of sunlight energy as every snowflake is unique.
When we eat food that barcode information is ‘read’ by our cells and our bodies use it to assimilate to our environment in a harmonic resonance. Such that when we eat out of season, or a food grown on a far-flung continent with a totally different light profile, we cause dissonance as our food is giving us information that does not resonate with what we are experiencing in our local environment. The recent interview with Nathan Styles on Solari covered some of this.
The work of Robert O Becker and, more recently, Prof Gerald Pollack has shown us (and Ulrike at Solari has covered in her beautiful series on health) we are electrical beings and it is our charge, first and foremost, not our material atoms or molecules, that give us health and vitality. Water has memory and holds that informational sunlight signature.
Spectroscopy can only measure the signatures of matter (molecules), not of what the water memory is holding or the charge of the plant or animal product.
What Dan is doing sounds great on the surface but it is clear that we know much more now than just looking at the physical matter of what things are made of. It is their resonance and charge that are key for their health-giving (or not) properties.
Furthermore, I found it somewhat disingenuous for Dan to say there is no difference in nutrient levels in organic food compared to non-organic. There are many studies to show that there are and, more importantly, it’s what the organic food does not contain that is important eg those heavy metals, pesticide residues, glyphosate, etc
I also take issue with Dan suggesting that using a refractrometer will give you a proxy for nutrient density. This is false. A refractometer measures brix, which is primarily a measure of sugar levels. Sugar levels are not a proxy for nutrients. Many of our fruits and vegetables have been bred to be sweeter over the past 50 years and to the detriment of nutrients – vitamins, minerals, polyphenols, etc.
Plus, the time of day, the season, the temperature, etc that the plant is harvested make a huge difference to brix levels: at mid day in full sun and plenty of moisture the plant will be rapidly photosynthesising and the sap will contain high levels of sugars. So the brix will read high but the levels of nutrients will be the same as if that plant was harvested in a cloudy day or under drought stress. Yet, on the shelf a refractrometer will tell you to buy the high-sugar option – this is not a proxy for nutrients!
Then we come to the point where Dan is saying how they could announce on social media where, for example, the highest nutrient (highest-sugar!) blueberries were for sale this week, I think could be extremely divisive and might end up in court. Does Dan care how this could impact small farmers trying to do the right thing?
And worse, Dan is talking about defining what should be in every food (or at least 20 of the main staple foods). What if they get it wrong (per what I have described above) or the big boys start genetically engineering their food to give the right signals that says it’s the best one to buy but it won’t be.
This sort of gadget has many questions and potential downsides and will only make people more stressed and neurotic about what to buy – it’s the last thing people need.
There is just so much wrong with this. The 25 million dollars he seeks would be better spent supporting small local community farms.
Excellent points. Yes, Dan is wrong about nutrient levels in organic food compared to non-organic. I agree, better to spend the money on small farms