Why Is Jack Kruse Anti-Supplements?
& why it matters.
Marketing is best when it can artfully place blinders on the mark to obscure reality, then convince them that their products are the only way to see clearly again. In the case of nutritional supplements, reductionistic science championed by a top-down, or biochemistry-first model, has already placed the blinders on the general population. It then becomes very simple to sell the dream that taking a pill will mend your ill. This has led to a multi-billion dollar supplement industry with no sign of plateau.
With popular personalities like Andrew Huberman, Mercola, Peter Attia and Rhonda Patrick seemingly mesmerised by supplements, I feel the general public has been subconsciously convinced that more is always better. After all, if you decided to take a supplement that had shown beneficial effects in some way, shape or form, one would wind up like Joseph Mercola or Joseph Cohen.1
So why does Jack Kruse buck the trend here? Why is his stance on supplements so fundamentally different to many others who are interested in health? Ultimately, I cannot speak for Jack and this is only my best understanding - one I feel may be useful for those wondering whether their creatine habit is worth it or not. Recently on X, many people seem to be confused about his position, and I am certainly not claiming to know exactly what Kruse thinks, but I believe there are a couple of ways to make his concerns clear.
Marketing
First and foremost, Jack’s career has almost certainly led him to insights only someone in his position at the time he went through it could accumulate. This point is abundantly clear in his podcast with Rick Rubin and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., where he outlines his experiences training as a neurosurgeon at Tulane. Jack no-doubt has seen first hand how nefarious the pharmaceutical industry has been in the shaping of the world we live in today, and I think he sees the supplement industry increasingly using the same playbook.
It does seem as though Jack actually cares about vulnerable consumers being hoodwinked by marketers who have zero fundamental understanding of biology and physics.2 This is highlighted by his utter distain for people like Dave Asprey, the godfather of marketing. I feel that he actually just wants people to see the marketing for what it is and realise that they are focused entirely on 1%ers and never on the big picture - light, water and magnetism. He does not sell anything3 and has often gone after big companies by continuously calling them out. Supplements are almost always used in an attempt to outsmart nature; something Jack simply will not stand for.
Benefits = Bad Environments
Secondly, his adage “if your body makes it, you’re not supposed to take it” is one that is often difficult to question. Although there are almost certainly niche cases where this does not hold up,4 there is a simple logic that sustains this assertion. I personally think that Jack’s underlying sentiment here is that if you benefit (get a net-positive response) from taking a certain supplement, then this is simply a sign that the environment you are in is suboptimal. I have personally compared the beneficial effects of RLT in this way as the sentiment is exactly correct; if you benefit from RLT, you are deficient in sunlight.5
To further this point, it is unclear how nutrients handling in the body is shaped by Kruse’s famed light, water and magnetism.6 It seems to me that our understanding of nutritional interactions (ie. how supplements can bring about ‘better’ outcomes) is severely limited by the fact that all of the studies are conducted in individuals (or rodents) that live in alien environments. How confident can we be that we’ll need that magnesium supplement if we spend the day outside, earthed and away from any 5G towers?
“Sunlight is nature’s complete compounding pharmacy.”
— Jack Kruse
Made By Nature Lab Techs
Finally, and perhaps most importantly is the fact that the vast majority of supplements are not made by nature, but rather in a lab. The synthetic nature of supplements is one of the most underappreciated aspects of this entire issue and one that I think lies at the core of Kruse’s objections to their use.
Conventional thinking would suggest that as long as the chemical structure is identical to what is found in nature, there can be no physicochemical differences in the body; ie. the body cannot distinguish between synthetic and natural. This is a falsehood. Nature goes to great lengths (and is sometimes restricted) to incorporate specific isotopes of atoms into chemical structures. Despite the fact that ¹²C and ¹³C are both ‘carbon’, they exhibit different resonances within molecules that make them “hotter” or “cooler”.
Take ozone (O3) for example. In nature, we would expect ozone to behave identically regardless of its isotopic constituents of 16O, 17O or 18O. Yet what is found is that the monoisotopic O3 comprised of 16O16O16O, 17O17O17O or 18O18O18O are more reactive relative to their polyisotopic cousins, with the least reactive O3 being 16O17O18O. This is known as the isotopic resonance hypothesis (IsoRes). In this particular case where the molecule is compositionally symmetric, Marcus and Gao (1992 Nobel Prize) suggested that this phenomena is due to a reduction in the possible quantum states available, making the molecule more reactive.
All this is to say that isotopic ratios in molecules can play significant roles in how reactive they are and their fate in the body. A recent paper investigating the IsoRes hypothesis found that seal bones contained twice the level of deuterium compared to the seawater they lived in. Interestingly, the excess deuterium was localised in two amino acids in the collagen of the bones; proline and hydroxyproline. It is hypothesised that deuterium is deposited here to increase the strength of the bones, as the bonds deuterium makes are roughly twice as strong as the bonds hydrogen makes.
However, what this finding really shows us is that life is tuned not only to chemistry, but submolecular dynamics. Much of what Kruse has focused on in this area has been on deuterium and hydrogen, however, he knows that these effects go all the way down. C3, C4 and CAM photosynthetic pathways integrate different ratios of carbon atoms, completely shifting the isotopic resonances. This means that the sugar derived from cane (C4) and the sugar derived from beets (C3) are fundamentally distinct in how they react in the body - their resonances vary.
The isotopic concentrations of foods vary so significantly that the dietary patterns of indigenous Alaskan populations can be identified by the ratio of carbon and nitrogen isotopes in their blood. This is one of the main reasons why eating locally is so important. Even if two foods are identical in chemical composition, the signal could feasibly be different if the isotopic ratios are different.
When made in a lab, synthetic supplements have zero isotopic control measures. Not only is there no way of controlling the ratios of carbons, hydrogens, oxygens, nitrogens, there is no way of placing said isotopes in the same positions of the molecule that is likely done in nature. For instance, deuterium in fatty acids seems to be placed in specific locations within the fatty acid - not placed randomly within the molecule. There is deep submolecular control, and the only conclusion must be that that is because it is exceedingly important for function.
I believe Kruse is ultimately concerned about the eventual fates of isotopes that make up synthetic supplements. There is no telling where they might end up and how that could impact system-wide coherence. A specific concern he raised7 was that it could negatively impact biological semiconduction. My take on this is relatively simple, and I hope that it mirrors Jack’s thoughts (although I cannot guarantee this). Szent-Gyorgi showed in the 1940s that proteins have semiconductor-like properties and were capable of facilitating the movement of labile charges. If the isotopic environment in the body is such that the synthesis of amino acids must use isotopes that it would otherwise avoid (due to eating an abundance of C4 foods in Alaska, for instance), the semiconductive properties of the proteins they are incorporated into are altered; the consequences of which could theoretically be extremely broad.
Think back to the aforementioned study looking at Alaskan natives and relative abundance of 15N isotopes. What happens to their proteins when they switch to imported foods with a much lower concentration of 15N relative to their native diet? These are important questions, and I think Jack might say that this was precisely the effect Weston A. Price was seeing in his work.
The fact is that we have no idea what the isotopic concentrations of supplements on the market are - there are simply no controls as there are in nature.8 Due to isotopic resonance, small shifts in isotopic ratios can lead to large effects as these scale non-linearly in complex systems. Even if we see benefits in the short term, it is almost impossible to predict the second, third, fourth, fifth order effects that result from potentially enriching the body in isotopes that are a fundamental mismatch with one’s environment.
Exceptions?
I suspect there is some middle ground to be found here. For instance, Jack has used methylene blue to great success in many cases, despite being synthetic. I suspect this means that there are places where he thinks the benefits outweigh the potential costs. I also suspect that these exceptions would come with the caveat that they are only to be used as a bridge to a better place.
Summary
Unlike most people in the health space, Jack Kruse almost always cautions against the use of supplements, which can seem confusing to those who are waterboarded with notions that they can significantly enhance health, performance, recovery etc.
Supplements have appeal by selling the dream that if you take some pill, you will be healthier. The modern world tends to produce linear thinkers, making the marketing of an item like supplements relatively simple. This is why the supplement industry is a multi-billion dollar industry. This industry (and those who sell their products) prey on those most vulnerable and fail to take in the broader context.
Supplements tend to reduce the complexity of life to simple 1:1 interactions and obfuscate the most critical aspects of biology; light water and magnetism.
The adage “if your body makes it, you’re not supposed to take it” paints very clearly his concerns about imbalance and dysregulation that could occur when using synthetics that the body has never evolved to deal with.
It seems Jack’s stance is generally that if you get a benefit from a supplement, that this itself is a sign that your environment is suboptimal.
There are no isotopic controls on synthetic supplements. The ramifications of this are hinted at by the overwhelming evidence that excess deuterium can damage energetics. Isotopic resonance describes how small shifts in isotopic ratios can have large effects on kinetics.
Again, this reflects my thoughts and not those of Jack. I do share the same concerns when it comes to supplements that are synthetically produced, however, these are similar concerns to consuming foods grown outside of my locale. I cannot speak to the magnitude of this concern compared to an exposure like living within eye-shot of high-voltage power lines, for instance. However, what is clear is that these concerns are real and certainly have effects worth noting.
Relevant Podcasts
Jack Kruse: Light, Water & Magnetism - The Foundation of Health
Jack Kruse: Mate Selection, DNA, Bioelectricity & Thermodynamics
Relevant Articles
I do not want to diss people like this, as they seem to be doing really well - better than myself even. So perhaps they are really onto something by taking 50+ supplements a day. I simply do not know, however, I think this is fraught with danger.
My personal interactions with Jack were extremely positive. He has been overwhelmingly generous to me, giving me over 3 hours of his time for essentially no personal benefit. His appearances on my podcast have been the most popular by far, growing it tremendously. He had no reason to do this other than generosity.
There may have been times in the past where he was involved with Magnetico and perhaps other brands but it seems as though these have all fallen away. I am not currently aware of any brand he is an ambassador for, although I have not looked into this extensively.
Life or death situations and severe injury are typically the place where such modalities can be helpful or even lifesaving. The reality though is that the marketing does not focus on these niche cases.
For all intents and purposes, everyone in the modern world is afflicted by this malady. For those unwilling or unable, RLT can absolutely be beneficial. This is why I believe it’s not a good idea to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I have written about this in separate articles called Biochemical Tensegrity: Why relationships and ratios trump isolated quantities & The Role Of Supplements In The Modern World: Where unnatural environments call for unnatural solutions.
Which prompted this article as someone reached out to me asking me to explain what Jack meant when he says to stay away from supplements.
This could even mean that one batch of supplements from the same supplier could have distinct effects compared to another batch even if the supplements contain exactly the same things. Small isotopic differences could shape the response you get. Buyer beware.