21 August 2012

Food frequencies

I'm sure you have experienced people telling you that you should eat this or that food rather than another, but have you ever read or heard about different foods having a unique frequency? How higher frequency foods are better for you? Been wondering how it all works? Then this is the article to give you all the answers you need.
For it is proclaimed, by many a yoghurt weaver, that processed and canned foods have a frequency of precisely 0MHz, while fresh vegetables have frequencies in the range 20 - 27MHz, and the really high frequency foods are products like seaweed, wheatgrass, spirulina etc. that hippies have been telling us for years are good for us.
Of course, there are a lot of variations on this theme (an example is given in the illustration below) and a lot of different numbers bandied about, though for some reason they all seem to agree that the frequency of pure rose oil is 320MHz. Not that consuming rose oil is particularly healthy for you, but that's another story. The important message is that eating higher vibration foods will raise your body's own vibration, which will in turn make us healthier and happier. Oh, and cure cancer. And activate all 12 strands of our DNA. Apparently. What does all this really mean?

Meat exhibits a rare phenomenon known as antivibrating, apparently.
It's nothing new having hippies tell us not to eat meat, for example, or non-organic foods, or processed foods, or takeaways from global fast food chains. There are tangible and good reasons behind all of these things - wether you agree with (or care about) those points of view or not. For example, ethics, chemical pollution of the environment, toxic substances in the food or global economics all play a part in people's food choices.
So where do these numbers come from?  It's almost as if someone has come up with a ratings scale for hippy food. There's no need for all these complex arguments about wether the president of Chick-Fil-A is a closet homosexual, or if organic food has more nutritional content than non-organic. You can just refer to the frequency of the food to decide wether it's suitable.
It makes me wonder why this sort of information is not publically available everywhere. I mean, food manufacturers in many countries are required to detail the nutritional content and calorific value of the product, so why not the frequency as well? Wouldn't food choices become so much easier?

So, lets take a step back. What does "frequency" actually mean? It's a hugely complicated subject and there are many different answers. Yoghurt weavers often use the term to apply to mystical, wishy-washy "vibrational energy" of the type undetected by science. The type you need to pay crystal healers and dowsers to help you read. I have written much about those types before.
Instead, this article is about the tangible, known-to-science kind of frequency. The type you can actually measure. Put simply, frequency is the number of times an event repeats itself per unit time. So, when applied to a periodic wave, for example, the frequency is the phase velocity divided by the wavelength. There are all sorts of different types of waves, which have different properties. Light and sound waves are examples. Pulses of electricity through a wire, nervous signals in the brain, and those wobbly things in the sea are others. Frequency is measured with the unit Hertz, which equals the number of cycles per second of the repeating event.

Frequency can also apply to oscillations. When yoghurt weavers are talking about "vibrational resonance" this is the known-to-science version that what they say most closely resembles. You may be aware that at a minute level, matter is made from atoms which are pieced together into molecules.
A water molecule
Consider water. In the diagram you will see that it consists of one oxygen atom bonded to two seperate hydrogen atoms. The "sticks" connecting them are called bonds. There are a number of different ways this molecule oscillates - the bonds can grow longer and shorter, they will move slightly relative to one another (a bit like a pair of scissors moving); both bonds can move in harmony this way and that relative to the oxygen nucleus - and so on. Also, the whole molecule moves around in a regular or irregular way depending upon its conditions - the medium, other molecules nearby, temperature, pressure; electrical, magnetic and gravitational fields; adhesive and cohesive forces that are a function of the container size and shape, and so on and so on. Finally, the spread of the electrical charge around the molecule moves around.
All these individual "frequencies" may be measured in a laboratory, for a given set of conditions, (with difficulty) but to say that a molecule of water has a unique frequency is hugely simplifying the issue. More correctly, it has many different oscillating frequencies pertaining to many different types of movement that vary according to a number of environmental conditions.

Moving up another level of complexity, here's a picture of a DNA molecule. This one is designed to be flexible and move around in a variety of complex ways, under manipulation by other, even larger, proteins and cofactors. Processes that happen in timescales measured in microseconds. In short, a small strand of DNA has thousands of unique oscillatory vibration movements that it makes.

Hopefully you are getting the point I'm trying to make. The concept of "frequency" when applied to a molecule is meaningless. Cells are made up of millions of hugely complex molecules in a dynamic, fluidic environment. Organisms are made up of millions of different cells of lots of different types. Therefore, the concept of frequency when applied to any type of food, or living tissue, is also meaningless. Furthermore, there are no methods of measuring it that are known to science.
(The one exception to this is the frequency of nervous signal transduction. But this too, has many complex local variables, and subject to change from one minute to the next.)

Put plainly, food and living tissues in general do not have a meaningful, fixed frequency of any description - whatever you measure, (with whichever quackery device you are using) is the sum total of thousands of different, fluctuating variables. So, returning to the original question, where do these numbers come from?

Researching this, I came across a lot of people who confused the issue of oscillating molecules with that of the frequency of light and sound, and more generally describing vibration as some amazing concept you can just apply to anything. Amazingly, Jesus had a score of over 1000MHz, a Tibetan singing bowl scores 615, and corn from the local market scores 80. One site proclaimed that cannabis has a frequency of 19, 500 MHz, I think it was called smokadaherb.com. Someone else was trying to convince the world that food comes in packets called "colloids" which can be as small as 0.1 Angstroms, apparently (smaller than a hydrogen atom!). These colloids have their own electrical charge which directly tops up the body's frequencies whenever you eat.
The less said about these fools, the better.

The company Coherent Resources, under the direction of a certain Bruce Tainio used to produce a machine called the BT3 Frequency Monitor. This seems to be the device that has been used to generate all the numbers. There is only vague technical information on how it's supposed to work but it explains the process in terms of molecular structure oscillations. The manufacturers say that results will vary over time, and one of the reasons they withdrew the product was because of the difficulty in reproducing results. They blame this on the increase in EMFs in our environment in the modern age. I would put it down more to the fact that measuring the "frequency" of a food (if indeed, that's what the device does) will give you a different result every time.

Dr Robert Rife was an inventor who came up with a device for measuring the frequencies coming from different types of body tissue. He was interested in using this information in medicine and claimed that disease only sets in to the human body when the frequency of body tissue drops below 62MHz. He then went on to invent a device for "beaming" certain frequencies at tumours to try and cure the cancers. This consisted of an anal probe typical of alien abduction movies rigged up to a car battery, and he had the same kind of measuring system, in MHz.
Several people died as a result of their abstention from medical treatment whilst undergoing this procedure. Rife claimed that his work was covered up and discredited in a conspiracy to supress cancer cures.

So it's almost tempting to come to the conclusion that there are no reliable ways of measuring the frequency of a food, or a body part for that matter, and these numbers that people ascribe are made up by the people who manufacter the health food products. These "superfoods" may be good for you because they have a good range of vitamins or fatty acids or minerals, because they are chemical free, or other tangible reason. But beware of claims that they have a higher frequency and don't listen to anyone who tells you that a food can cure cancer.


  1. I never knew foods had frequencies or that there were people who claimed they did...It will give Lee & I something to giggle about when shopping though..''What is the frequency of a Croissant ?'' :0)

  2. I just wasted 10min on this. I wish I read your Rife statement first, that would save me some time.
    I think following statement was actually pulled out of your "anal opening": "This consisted of an anal probe typical of alien abduction movies rigged up to a car battery, and he had the same kind of measuring system, in MHz.
    Several people died as a result of their abstention from medical treatment whilst undergoing this procedure. "
    His "device" did not consist of "an anal probe" as you claimed, but I am sure you knew that when you made a ridiculous comment.

    1. Hi JJ,
      Sorry you didn't like my article, which was meant as comedy. I present little in the way of facts and much in the way of opinion. My aim is to poke fun at people who think they have all the answers.

    2. Agree with JJ, <<<<<John Broken, as you said you presented this in a very much in the way of your opinion. It is not about have all the answers. There are many formal research done in this way ( Dr. F.A. Popp in Bio-Photon emission, or Dr. Joanna Budwig with four degrees in medicien, physics, pharmacology, and biochemistry and her theory of "pi electrons", or experiments done by the russian Dr. Israel Brekman or Hans Pinger of the University of Viena and the effects of food on electrical potential of cells and tissues. Maybe you must do some research before present such statements that in any way are influencing people, it is a big responsibility not just " poking fun at people". Maybe could be more convenient for you to stay in a more neutral position when you know are presenting "little in the way of facts" and of course with very much respect even if you disagree with others works or their opinions.

    3. Hi Manuel
      Thank you for highlighting to me some interesting researchers. Popp's research looks very intriguing. It is about quantum physics, a fascinating subject that I believe will one day be forefront in unlocking the mysteries of the Universe. Budwig's research on lipid metabolism is fascinating but sadly, not very reliably replicated by other researchers. Brekman has an amazing website describing the properties of various herbs and foods.
      All of this seems like sound science to me. However, none of these people said much about food frequencies so I'm not sure how they relate to my article.
      I couldn't find anything about this Hans Pinger, perhaps you would be kind enough to link an article?
      I don't agree that I have any responsibility. I can write whatever I want. People can take it seriously or laugh at it. I don't control how people react to me, nor can I.
      But I do hope that, laughter or not, my work makes people think. A researcher with some big ideas is not hard science.

  3. cannabis essential oils are 440 million mhz :D

    1. No, actually cannabis oil is 528 Hz

    2. I want you both to present data.

  4. When the electron leaps to the other site on the receptor, it could trigger a chain reaction that ends up sending signals to the brain that the receptor has come into contact with that particular molecule. This, Turin says, is an essential part of what gives a molecule its smell, and the process is fundamentally quantum.

    “Olfaction requires a mechanism that somehow involves the actual chemical composition of the molecule,” he says. “It was that factor that found a very natural explanation in quantum tunnelling.”

    The strongest evidence for the theory is Turin’s discovery that two molecules with extremely different shapes can smell the same if they contain bonds with similar energies.

    Turin predicted that boranes – relatively rare compounds that are hard to come by – smelled very like sulphur, or rotten eggs. He’d never smelt a borane before, so the prediction was quite a gamble.

    Quantum frequency non-local entanglement as smell - clinched

    He was right. Turin says that, for him, that was the clincher. “Borane chemistry is vastly different – in fact there’s zero relation – to sulphur chemistry. So the only thing those two have in common is a vibrational frequency. They are the only two things out there in nature that smell of sulphur.”

    While that prediction was a great success for the theory, it’s not ultimate proof. Ideally Turin wants to catch these receptors in the act of exploiting quantum phenomena. He says they are getting “pretty close” to nailing those experiments. “I don’t want to jinx it, but we’re working on it,” he says. “We think we have a way to do it, so we’re definitely going to have a go in the next few months. I think that nothing short of that will really move things forward.”

  5. Hello I am so delighted I located your blog, I really located you by mistake, while I was watching on google for something else, Anyways I am here now and could just like to say thank for a tremendous post and a all round entertaining website. Please do keep up the great work. look

  6. Thank you for nice post. I hope a lot more people will appreciate your post