Talk:Macrobiotic diet

Historical Development of Macrobiotics Diet Concepts

In the infobox, we see:

• Year proposed - 1797
• Original proponents: George Ohsawa

Ohsawa didn't live until the later 18th century (1893). Sagen Ishizuka was born in 1850. What was going on in 1797 that it is cited as as historical market in the historical development of the concepts used by macrobiotics? We have:

• Sagen Ishizuka ... was one of the first to investigate the nutritional value of whole grains as well as sea vegetables, daikon, and kudzu.* The diet was popularized by George Ohsawa in the 1930s and subsequently elaborated by his disciple Michio Kushi.

Don't we have Asian and Hellenistic origins around 'health advice'? MaynardClark (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Section on Chinese Macrobiotics

I have restored the section on Chinese macrobiotics because firstly the Nei Jing is probably one of the oldest sources in existence for natural health and dietary recommendations, also it stresses the importance of prevention and lifestyle as well as diet. Secondly it is highly likely that the Japanese macrobiotic recommendations were influenced by these considering a large portion of Japanese culture - especially medicine - was inherited from China and Traditional Chinese Medicine which is based on the Huangdi Neijing. In my humble opinion a great deal more could be added to this section considering the growing importance of Traditional Chinese Medicine and it's influence on Western medicine and a lot more research could be done into it's history. Please do not delete this section but if you have any comments or recommendations for expanding it then please speak up.Chuangzu (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You did some blatant POV-pushing, distorting the sources as you went. Don't. Alexbrn (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the Laughter

Hi. I've been using Wikipedia since 2006. It's been a superb reference. Yesterday, I was celebrating my 32nd anniversary of being on a macrobiotic diet, so I looked up Macrobiotic Diet in Wikipedia. I was literally laughing out loud.

Where did all of this negative, erroneous, claptrap come from? I presume the reference to Zen Buddhism stems from a macrobiotic diet book titled "Zen Macrobiotics" that was published over a half-century ago -- and had nothing to do with the Zen Buddhist religion?

How about the nearly 50 year old citation about malnutrition? I guess that was before the USDA designed the food pyramid, in 1992, that closely resembles the macrobiotic diet. And before they opened the Macrobiotic exhibit at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History?

Moreover, I'm 64. After half a lifetime macrobiotic, when will I encounter my own serious bouts of malnutrition? Shall I stop eating fresh vegetables, whole grains, real bread, pasta, pickles and fish, and race back to my diet of steak, burgers, meatloaf and mashed potatoes and gravy? What do you think my MD would say?

Whoever is "in charge" of this "article", I'd like to thank you for bringing such humor to Wikipedia. Great Stuff!

But you may want to clean it up before you kill someone.

Sincerely, Greentree 11 (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The Zen sources are strong and recent. Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The abstract you use as reference 1, The Macrobiotic Diet in Chronic Disease, shows a far more balanced and favorable view of macrobiotics than the Wikipedia "version". The ONLY reference to Zen is in the footnotes of that article, and that reference is a JAMA footnote dated October 18, 1971.

Reference 3, A Dictionary of Food and Nutrition, published for the 4th time in 2014, includes a brief parroting of the Wikipedia article that you have commandeered. Circular references lead nowhere.

Reference 19, Scurvy: historical review and current diagnostic approach, is 14 years old and allows no access to the full text. Your link mentions " followers of fad diets such as the Zen macrobiotic diet" but the macrobiotic diet hasn’t been called "zen macrobiotic" since the early 1980's; 35 years ago. And even then, "Zen" macrobiotics cited no relationship with Zen Buddhism.

Reference 28, refers to the JAMA article from 1971.

These references are neither recent nor are they strong. Again, why are you cherry picking ancient references and ignoring the positive, more recent, accolades (some of which I've already mentioned)? Almost everything in the Wikipedia article ignores the fact that the Macrobiotic Diet was among the first, if not the first, diet to introduce the elimination of high LDL food from the American & European public. As such, it has saved and increased the longevity of hundreds of thousands of lives.

If I were seeking relief through a healthier way of life, and I landed on this Wikipedia article -- essentially saying that a diet of whole grains, fresh vegetables and fish is bad for me -- what then may my conclusion be?

I'm not saying that skepticism should be set aside. But the truth of the matter is, this article should begin with "A Macrobiotic diet is a diet that has been used by thousands of people, in order to remain in good health. It's origins can be traced back to ancient Egyptian records (https://www.insidescience.org/news/what-did-ancient-egyptians-really-eat) and some anthropological sources cite grain-eating as the reason we became human.

This is 2017. Why in the world are you stuck on citations from 1971?

Again, if I was seeking relief through a healthier way of life, and I landed on this totally negative Wikipedia article, I would have to conclude that dietary change isn't the answer. And where would that leave me?

I don't know how long you've been "in control" of this Wikipedia page but, if it's been over six months, you've certainly killed someone -- simply by cherry picking your ancient and outmoded "facts." Skepticism is healthy and necessary. But this one-sided misinformation is lethal.

Zen Buddhist diet? Wrong. Your conclusions are generally incoherent.... Greentree 11 (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably best to stick to reputably-published sources. From 2014/[1]. Alexbrn (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Greentree. You need to learn how to correctly indent your posts to talk pages using colons. Then you need to learn to recognise WP:RS (reliable sources according to wikipedia WP:P&G) and then you need to learn how to read those sources, and then you need to learn how to use those sources to improve wikipedia articles. Good luck, -Roxy the dog. bark 08:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Roxy the dog. I'm working on it.Greentree 11 (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Fad diet?

There are problems with this article. In earlier stages, it seemed to be a promotion for a Macrobiotic diet. Recent editings have resulted in an extremely negative view. The "fad diet" lede is rather demeaning. There are many diets that avoid meat, allow fish, and emphasize whole grains and vegetables, and these are seldom called "faddish".

One criticism not mentioned is that it is based on the traditional diet of Japanese Zen monks. Brown rice, green tea, vegetables, soy products, seaweeds, what's wrong with these? Yet one can see a prejudice against New World products such as capsicum peppers, tomatoes, avocados, etc. (beyond their "in"-ness), or even maize, which, when combined with beans and squashes, can provide a strong dietary basis. Yes, there is a cultishness in Mr. Kushi's reliance on iridology and other forms of traditional diagnostics, but I would omit the blanket designation "fad diet." Finn Froding (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a fad diet, RS calls it that so We do too. Alexbrn (talk)

This article is tendentious shit. How can it be a fad diet if it has been around that long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.241.72.9 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Fad diet does not mean recent diet; see Food faddism. Alexbrn (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The term "fad diet" is an accusation. If RS uses the term, this does not change that it is accusatory. I have marked this as POV because that is not a factual description, it is a negative characterization stated as a fact, as described in Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Accusations. It is neutral to say that RS says it is a fad diet. It is not neutral to accept this accusation as a fact. And you are required to allow people to discuss the other side of that dispute. But that also has been prevented, changes to address this have been rolled back. This article needs to be neutral and informative about this disagreement, not to take sides in it. This has been discussed on this talk page often enough, and enough edits have been rolled back. It is time to notice that this is a POV problem and deal with it, not to force opinions into the article against the strongly-held views of people who practice the beliefs that the article describes. Kcrca (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, just to be clear, "fad diet" is just the first of the unbalanced discussion here. The intro, especially, is very judgmental. And I'm assuming that "RS" refers to some person or journal. If by "RS" you mean "real science", the references are insufficient to show that. Science may have something to say about whether it has the health benefits that some claim, but "fad diet" is not a scientific term, and disputes about health effects should be discussed as disputes about health effects. The macrobiotic approach is not a pseudo-scientific "medical" approach like homeopathy, it is more like vegetarianism or veganism -- it is a way of approaching how food is selected and prepared, and whatever benefits flow (or are claimed to flow) from eating well (as defined by the approach). There are certainly some people who make overwrought claims, but that is not the mainstream of the practice. If you don't know that, well, that is evidence of the POV problem. Kcrca (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)