Talk:Macrobiotic diet

Please click here to leave a new message.

Welcome to the Talk Page for Macrobiotic diet. Please use the box above, or manually enter new messages at the end of the page. If you haven't already done so, please consider registering as a Wikipedia user (no cost, not required). This will give you your own Talk page, and make it a lot easier to keep up with Wikipedia articles of interest to you.

This page is not moderated. Please do not remove the comments of others. Instead, reply by adding your own.

Miscellaneous

but fish are vetebrates. Glueball 00:11 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Nightshades, caffeine, etc.

What about nightshades, caffeine and pressed lettuce? The one time I had the misfortune of being hauled to a cooperative macrobiotic kitchen, there were warning labels about nightshades on the salsa bowl, since apparently some MB diets don't consume them. The lettuce was also pressed, in accordance with some MB diets, and the tea was made from stems only, apparently because of some MB caffeine issues.

It'd be cool if the article addressed some of these things, so that the unwashed beef-eating heathens like me who visit the article asking can see whatever justifications are made for these eccentricities.

-Ben

"See also" for Macrobiotic lifestyle?

Er, should I make a "See also" for Macrobiotic lifestyle? The name and concept seem similar but the origins sound quite a bit different. Are they related at all? Kent Wang 22:07, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable. Though, I haven't read the other article... Actually, now that I look, I wonder if the articles shouldn't be merged, and in the process fact-checked against verifiable sources. They both seem to basically be saying the same things. But the Macrobiotic diet article seems to be more developed. Anyone want to put up a suggested merger tag and/or consider working on a merge? If the two articles are different, how so? Something akin to Vegitarianism vs Veganism? Don't know enough on the topics to comment with any degree of authority. Mgmirkin 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Introduction (coining of the term macrobiotics)

Concerning the coining of the term macrobiotics -->

C.W. Hufeland was not the first to use the term macrobiotics:

"The earliest recorded use of the term macrobiotics is found in the writing of Hippocrates, the father of Western Medicine. In his essay 'Airs, Waters, and Places,' Hippocrates introduced the word to decribe people who were healthy and long-lived.[...]Herodotus, Aristotle, Galen, and other classical writers used the term macrobiotics to describe a lifestyle, including a simple balanced diet, that promoted health and longlivity." (Stephen Blauer, in Michio Kushi (1993), The Macrobiotic Way,2nd edition,AVERY, p.xi)

blackmamba 13:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Hippocrates, that would be macrobios, not macrobiotics. Not sure if he "introduced the word" per se, but he is cited as the earliest recorded use. And Hufeland would have been using the term in German, i.e. "Macrobiotik". But it does seem misleading to mention Hufeland in the leading paragraph without mentioning Hippocrates or Ohsawa. --Dforest 09:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Move to macrobiotics? Merge macrobiotic lifestyle?

I propose we move this article to macrobiotics, which is a redirect. It would be more consistent with the leading sentence, and clearly macrobiotics is more than a diet. And we should also consider merging macrobiotic lifestyle, which is basically a fork. Note the leading sentence of this article:

Macrobiotics (from the Greek "macro" (large, long) + "bios" (life)) is a lifestyle that incorporates a dietary regimen.

Comments? --Dforest 09:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Like above comment on Macrobiotic lifestyle, sounds reasonable. Seeing as how Macrobiotics does appear to be the term referenced in the article's starting sentence. Also seems like linguistically, Macrobiotics could be perceived as the "study" or philosophy of the macrobiotic diet and/or lifestyle? I don't know if that's a good or bad thing. Still, the 3 heading seem directly related and need at the LEAST a disambiguation page, if not a bit of congealing into a single article, or very specifically defined separate articles with notable differences on different topics (not 2-3 that all say the same thing). Mgmirkin 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Celebrities?

I was surprised to see that there isn't a listing of celebrities that did/do follow macrobiotics for a while; there had to be a few. I can recall Lennon and Ono being for it for a while (Mike Douglas show from the 70's) and surely if they did it other big names tried too? That would be an interesting thing to see, in the article--people love to see big names attached to stuff, y'know?--Tabaqui 18:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, John Cage even published a bunch of macrobiotic recipes in one of his books, although it isn't referred to in his article. Selfinformation 12:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Quirky actor Crispin Glover follows a macrobiotic diet plan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.184.117.75 (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Translate the pseudoscience.

This article throws around terms that are vague and unscientific, i.e. "yin-energy foods". Instead of talking about a food as "high" or "low" energy, indicate whether that means caloric content, vitamin content, etc. Remember, neutral point of view does not mean taking pseudoscience seriously.

I disagree completely. If (ascientific) philosophical or religious theories are the main motivation for macrobiotic diets, they should be presented as such. Demanding that yin/yang terminology be translated into actual nutrituional information is a classification error: the same rule would rewrite the Kosher article from a bacteriological perspective. The article as it stands makes clear that macrobiotic dieting has its origins in philosphy, and (in the criticism section) that a nutritional analysis shows there to be no scientific or nutritional basis whatsoever for following one. -Ben 16:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Now hold on a sec. The thing is that a lot of people take Eastern philosophy as gospel, scientific and otherwise; otherwise nobody would take the concept of qi seriously. The fact is that the very name of the diet is a health claim, and it's something of a copout to analyze it any other way. Vegetarianism in general is a philosophical diet for many, especially for religious groups such as the Jains and the Hindu Brahmans, as well as ethical vegetarians in Western cultures. Macrobiotics is a bit different -- it equates philosophy with science, and it's disingenuous to claim anything else. (In any case, if macrobiotics is viewed solely from a philosophical view, it provides an unfair out to those who need to explain the death of Aveline Kushi several years short of the normal female life expectancy. But that's argument from adverse consequences.) Haikupoet 01:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is a philosophical base for following a macrobiotic way of eating ( a diet is not an accurate description). There is , however, plenty of reasons for following the way of eating for nutritional reasons. As with healthy vegan diets, all nutritional requirements can be met with well planned macrobiotic eating. Only B12 would have to be supplemented if not enough fish was eaten. Vegetarian diets are seen, despite those who wish to debunk them, to according to the science, have great disease preventive benefits.

Most americans are eating diets that are dificient in several key nutrients. The dangers of eating high fat, high protien animal foods diets are well documented. All diets should be well planned.

So what kind of clarification do you propose to an article that doesn't claim MB to be scientific in the normal sense of the word, and points out the nutritional consensus that MB is similar to Breatharianism? Certainly, if it weren't for NPOV, you and I could simply reclassify it as "Dangerous Nonsense", then get into a big edit war. But the fact is that a Japanese philosopher founded it as a philosophical tool, and a lot of people practice it for the same reasons. This should be presented clearly, and I believe the article does that. It's also a fact that the medical/scientific community views MB as having no health benefits whatsoever at best, and fatal consequences at worst. I think the article also presents that, though perhaps doesn't go into enough depth. Do you not think my comparison with Kashrut valid? -Ben 02:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention of breatharianism at least, now.

I don't (Kashrut makes no specific health claims, it's simply a set of rules followed by one particular religion), although you have a point overall. What I'm saying is that if scientific claims are made (and the name Macrobiotic is a scientific claim in and of itself) then the product should be viewed according to a scientific standard. And yes, that does mean coming up with a scientific equivalence to yin and yang or whatever, but the onus of that is on those presenting the theory in the first place. I do agree that there could be more discussion of scientific criticism of the subject, but then I think that's the case about a lot of articles on Wikipedia about the paranormal and "alternative". Haikupoet 02:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... You have a point. The article does state (albeit not very explicitly) that the macrobiotic diet people lifted the term "macrobiotic" from a proto-scientific usage to apply to their own eccentric eating habits. That might be worth clarifying. Other than that, the article does state that practitioners think the diet improves their health, but that's coupled with it improving their happiness. I still find it hard to imagine anyone could read the article and come away seeing MB as anything like a nutritional recommendation. -Ben 19:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the basis of macrobiotics might not be "scientific", but "philosophical". However, if it is so, pseudo-scientific terms should be removed. For example, what on earth are "organically-grown whole grain cereals,..."? Are there cereals, vegetables, fruits or any other somesuch that is INORGANIC or INORGANICALLY-GROWN? Either the term "organic" should be used within its correct and scientific meaning (and accept corrections based on science), or not used at all. It is very biased to use pseudo-scientific terms to fool readers into believing a scientific base for something (and silently claiming credibility for that), and then not accepting scientific rigor as a judge of that "something". Isilanes 11:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"what on earth are "organically-grown whole grain cereals,..."?" Seems pretty obvious to me. Please see Organic farming and Organic certification. --Ds13 17:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand the (incorrect and pseudoscientific) use that is made of the "organic" word, in contexts like "organic farms" or "organic food". But understanding doesn't equal aggreeing. Using "organic", to mean "natural" or to opose it to "synthetic" is misleading, at best. DDT, for example, might well be a synthetic pesticide, not to be seen near any "organic farm". However, DDT is as organic as it gets. OTOH, I don't think "organic farmers" opose to the use of common salt as edible condiment, or refuse to water their plants, however inorganic sodium chloride and hidrogen oxide might be. Carbon dioxide and oxigen are also inorganic, but vital for plants, so why the "organic" label? Its use in this article might be seen as justified by widespread use, but to some extent any encyclopedia should try to dispell ignorance, not help spread it. Isilanes 13:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, such as dispelling ignorance of the fact that a single word can have several meanings and uses. Your substantive advocacy of a prescriptive, normative stance is contrary to your above assertion. Knowledge is descriptive. What you want to do is erase or ignore a substantial portion of reality by dismissing it as "pseudoscientific." If a philosophy touts itself as a pseudoscience, then it should be portrayed as it portrays itself and then a "criticisms" section can be added, eg, to dispute specific claims such as the origin of red blood cells. However, you come across as someone who feels threatened or offended by macrobiotics, and spending a lot of energy here at that. If you're really interested in debating whether something is a "pseudoscience" there are better places to look.72.244.201.27 08:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You can confirm the myriad of correct meanings of the word organic in many places:

• Dictionary.com
• Encyclopædia Britannica
• organic (Wikipedia disambiguation page)

Cheers. --Ds13 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I bow to the accepted use of the term, however incorrect it still seems to me. The inclusion of e.g. definition 3. in Dictionary.com, is an example of commonplace (mis)use of a term leading to acceptance by "authorities". If you see the definitions in that 3rd entry, you'll realize they are vague, at the very least:

• "Of, marked by, or involving the use of fertilizers or pesticides that are strictly of animal or vegetable origin: organic vegetables; an organic farm." Water, oxigen and salt are mineral, not animal nor vegetal. Do they not use them in organic farms? Animal feces might be used as fertilizers... would a human drying these feces (say, over a bonfire) still qualify them as "natural", or "processed"? A substance ("artificially") distiled (by evil humans) from the leaves of a certain tree would still be "strictly of animal or vegetable origin"? A substance obtained by mixing two "organic" substances (say, the blood of a pig and the meat of an apple) would still qualify as "natural"? Would it be different if such a mixture was made by aunt Polly in her shack or a large-scale reactor of a multi-billion company?
• "Raised or conducted without the use of drugs, hormones, or synthetic chemicals: organic chicken; organic cattle farming." Drugs? Anything is a drug. An organic farmer can not take LSD, but can lick the back of a certain frog to hallucinate? The farmer can ingest the bark of a willow to have its salicilin cure her headache, but can not have an aspirin (chemically derived from salicilin)? Hormones? Do organic chickens not have hormones? Hormone abuse is certainly bad, but even human kids take them when they have e.g. growing problems, or women in their menopause. Most popular contraceptives are hormones, or molecules that mimick them. Synthetic chemicals? Who wrote that dictionary? Is there still anybody who thinks a synthetic sugar molecule is in any way "different" from the same "natural" sugar. Nature in itself is a huge chemical lab, as "artificial" as you can get, and more complex and error prone than many human labs. Also natural venoms kill as effectively as any artificial one, and most animal and vegetal derivatives are actually toxic. Having a walk in the forest and eating whatever you came accross is as dangerous as doing so in the center of a city.
• "Simple, healthful, and close to nature: an organic lifestyle." Yeah, right. They could as well have said "organic=good", and save space. The guy who equated "natural" and "simple", simply (not naturally) has no idea of what nature is. Healthful: as in cocaine or heroin, or alcohol, or tobacco, or mescaline, or marijuana, or poisonous fish and snakes, or toxic plants. Close to nature: as in not using a shovel to dig a hole to plant the organic vegetables, not using gloves to avoid hurting your hands, not using motor vehicles to transport your products, not using the phone to contact your buyers, or not making a call with Skype to your son, who is studying in France.

From whatever side you see it, "organic" is just a scientific word, borrowed by pseudoscientists to gain credibility, streching its meaning to what they will then label as "good". Isilanes 23:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Your argument would be a lot more convincing if you could spell "oxygen".

"From whatever side you see it, "organic" is just a scientific word, borrowed by pseudoscientists to gain credibility" It's not so simple. Science borrowed the word from Latin, where it meant something else again, so science changed the word to suit its own purposes. Then a later special interest group of environmentalists or food-obsessives (starting in 1942) used the word in a new way. And so it goes. We're all just borrowing words from someone before and changing them to suit our purposes.

You seem interested, so here's a bit of the etymology of "organic": 1517, "serving as an organ or instrument," from L. organicus, from Gk. organikos "of or pertaining to an organ," from organon "instrument", obviously related to the word "organ". In this light, some might see "organic chemistry" as a misleading change in meaning. Then there's the Ph.D.'s in economics who speak of "organic growth" within an organization, referring to not requiring injections of external capital, etc. All quite different, but I don't see big problem. --Ds13 01:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

These discussions , often, seem to have nothing to do with the content of the this article but are nit picking words and semantics. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support the health promoting effects of foods suggested in a macrobiotic approach. The USDA is now suggesting that whole grains such as brown rice be eaten daily as opposed to cheerios.

What is not written in the article but taught in classes on macrobiotics is the idea that the goal is to develop an intiutive understanding of what your body needs. The guidelines of eating are to resensitize people to the effects of foods and lifestyle practices. The goal is that a person will choose a diet and lifestyle that is health supportive once sensitivity is restored.

In my view, it would be more productive on this page to discuss the philosophy of health . I am not sure why a way of eating that is similar to one eaten by cultures that had good health and longevity is eccentric.( See John Robbin's book, "Healthy at 100".) Since it is estimated by researchers that diet plays a great role in the development of cancer and heart disease, we should all be eccentric.

I know many who have followed a macrobiotic way of living that are incredibly healthy. Those who arent' are generally stuck in following the rules and regulations of eating versus an intuitive knowledge.````

Criticism

As a longtime practitioner of the macrobiotic philosophy and diet, I find it more than a bit disturbing that high profile cancer deaths in the macrobiotic community seem to constantly be removed from the criticism section of the macrobiotics article. I believe it is important that these deaths are kept front and center for several reasons. The first, and most important reason has been demonstrated by Michio Kushi himself. If you have a cancerous tumour threatening your life, have surgery to gain the time to let macrobiotics strengthen you. Michio Kushi did so. Too many others did not. Arrogance is not only localized in the American Medical Association, it is just as prevalent in the macrobiotic community. We do not have all the answers, just some of the most important ones. Secondly, our methods and techniques will not continue to evolve if we dogmatically blame an imaginative assortment of variables for why the diet does not heal some cancer victims, or prevent it in the first place. If these high profile deaths are the result of air and water too polluted to properly sustain life then it is important we come to see this. Not make unfounded statements like "Aveline developed cervical cancer because Michio smoked", or "Cecile developed cancer because she worked too hard on her tea company." or "Anthony Sattilaro varied the diet too much and killed himself". The truth is important to everyone but self serving business people who need to make a buck on the "Cure-All" myth of macrobiotics. I will continue to post the truth here as long as I know there are sick and ill who will come to this site for answers.

The statement that modern macrobiotic teachers that are well versed in modern and traditional systems of nutrition is fine. But the further statement that their system teach a well balanced approach to nutrition that satisfy's all nutritional requirements, without citation, is a clear POV and innacurate. The point seems to be to undermine the criticism of macrobiotics which is considered by most scientists to be ill advised, unhealthy and possibly dangerous. Even the minority of scientists who accept that some of the less oppressive versions of macrobiotics are healthy (that is that they are as healthy as a balanced diet of fruits, vegetables, meats, cheese, milk etc.) do not believe it is anything but dangerous for children. But just stating that there are any macrobiotic diets which meet all nutritional requirements without scientific citation is clearly not a NPOV.

In point of fact, well balanced macrobiotic approaches to diet do satisfy all modern scientific requirements regarding protein, fats, vitamin, minerals,etc. It is an inaccurate statement that most scientists believe a macrobiotic approach to diet to be ill advised. Are you talking about chemists or atomic engineers? Are you referring to nutritionists who recommend a so called well balanced diet that includes high amounts of unhealthy foods such as refined sugars?

There is a growing recognition from researchers that diets which consists of high amounts of meats, cheese and milk are unhealthy and causative of cancer, heart disease and other illnesses.

The idea that the dietary teachings are dangerous for children is based on an erroneous idea of the teachings. Even well balanced vegan diets are seen as being adequate and healthy for growing children. People who feed their children in a macrobiotic way incorporate milk and eggs from healthy animals as needed by individual children.

The complete removal of the Criticism section of the Macrobiotic Diet page does a great disservice to the macrobiotic community and to those ill individuals who come here to learn. Given that many teachers of the community developed cancers, the model obviously needs refinement. Denying these cancers and the resulting deaths is exactly the kind of whitewashing that the macrobiotic community has claimed that corporate American is guilty of in promoting unhealthy foods to make a buck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.75.167 (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

J/ April 12,2007

Michio Kushi's current health status?

I attempted to verify the statement that Michio Kushi is currently suffering from cancer, but it was pretty much impossible to filter out all the pro-macrobiotic material that came up in a quick google search. Does anyone have a cite for this? (Aveline Kushi's death from cervical cancer just shy of the standard life expectancy as well as Georges Ohsawa's death from a heart attack are both well documented, but I was not able to find anything on Michio Kushi's current health.) Haikupoet 00:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is vitally important in a balanced discussion of macrobiotics that we include a list of the many experienced and thoughtful macrobiotic teachers who died from cancer. Macrobiotics is an evolutionary process and we will not continue to grow if we do not acknowledge significant failures. Michio Kushi has had cancer. His wife and daughter died from it. So did my friend Cecile Levin. There are many others. This was mentioned at one time in this wiki listing for macrobiotics, but it appears that significant spin control is going on.

Well, good luck finding a peer-reviewed scientific journal that has carried out this study. Otherwise, such assertions are meaningless. 221.133.101.80 (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Macribiotics and infants

Hi I would just like to add these comments:

Infants, Children and the Macrobiotic diet.

Studies on infants and children who followed their parents macrobiotic nutrition principles showed that they deviated most from the current norms when compared to other infants and children on other types of alternate nutrition.. Growth retardation was strongest in the 8-14 months of age. This related to a diet low in energy-density, fat and protein. Data also revealed very low Vitamin B12 concentrations. Iron and Vitamin D deficiency were also found in a number of the children studied. The children were also retarded in gross motor skills and language development. This was independent of socio–economic or hygiene factors. The typical diet of an infant starting solids was water based sieved porridges, followed by veges, seseme seeds, and pulses. Fruit was rarely given. To correct this it was suggested that these infants and children be given 20-25gm of oil n each day, 100-150grams of fatty fish each week and daily servings of milk be offered as a source of Calcium, protein and Vitamin B12. Source: Dagnelie, P.V., VanStaveren, W.A. & Hautvast, J.G.J.A. 1991 Stunting and Nutrition Deficiencies in Children on Alternate Diets. Acta PaediatrScand Suppl374: 111-118

Bobbi c —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobbi campbell (talk • contribs) 09:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

This is why the article mentions a new breed of macrobiotic teachers. This study , that is cited,took place in the Netherlands where people were feeding their children a very narrow version of macrobiotic eating.

It has been found by macrobiotic teachers that a wider diet which includes more fish, eggs and some dairy products is more suited for children. Vegan diets are not recommended but may be adequate for some children with some supplementation. The macrobiotic movement is attemting to bring traditional healthy eating to modern society. This approach is continually evolving, although, by reading some books, it may give the impression that the dietary suggestions are set in stone. J.April 13,2007 J

Confusing sentence?

"Other animal products from naturally raised animals may be included according to need such as heavy physical labor or desire as in transition or for social purposes"

Specifically, "according to need such as heavy physical labor or desire as in transition or for social purposes"

Perhaps my brain isn't working today, but what the heck does the middle section of this portion of the sentence mean: "or desire as in transition or for social purposes"? I can't make heads or tails of it. It should probably be re-written for clarity.

Did they mean something akin to "according to need, such as for heavy physical labor, for social purposes, or as desired while transitioning between diets (non-macrobiotic -> macrobiotic, etc.)"?

Like I said, the line could probably use a quick re-write for clarity. Mgmirkin 21:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits of Critisism

I tried to clean up what one editor recentaly posted, however the comments on it being "helpful" is a contentious subject. In the sense of helping cancer remission or allowing a longer life, a study could be preformed. If nobody can make it sound right, I'd reccomend just removing it. 68.236.246.127 17:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words a'plenty, references need to be consistent

I've adjusted the "cleanup" tags a bit, but in reading the article, I'm seeing a lot of weasel words left, even after some dedicated editors have visited and removed POV and weasel-y statements.

I also see tons of references which are not done in the usual <REF> fashion. If you have time (it does take time and effort), please take a section and convert the WWW references to proper footnotes. TIA! David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Contextual spelling error in first paragraph

saturated = surely the author mean satiated as in satisfied and fully fed. ArthMawr 11:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the change. Be bold, etc. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

yin/yang error

Hallo,

in this article about macrobiotics where extreme yin and yang foods are listed, the titles have been mixed up: meat, refined salt... are yang, and sugar, milk... are yin. for someone who is getting started in mb this could couse a confusion.

if someone could fix this it would be great, thank you

193.198.138.228 12:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nearly complete deletion of the article

Somebody deleted large parts of the article without any discussion or justification. I would ask this person to explain himself, otherwise I would suggest to undo this deletion. --88.66.47.225 (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

MRSA & MACROBIOTICS

Can you please comment on MRSA and how macrobiotice may be of benefit in treating this condition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.197.120 (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Offering some clarifications on the "Some Points" Section below

Cecile Tovah Levin was 61 when she passed and not in her eighties as the "Some Points" below claims. I knew her personally and know this for a fact. Though Michio Kushi was a smoker, it was not lung or heart disease which proved to be the problem as outlined in this clarification below. He had a cancerous tumor removed from his intestines. This is entirely different and does not fit the smoking model being outlined below. I have practiced macrobiotics for 20 years and believe firmly in the healing power of macrobiotics. But this clarification below is guilty of a common mistake I see in well intentioned macrobiotic practitioners, explaining away cancer in macrobiotic people on the flimsiest of hypotheses. Cecile Tovah Levin was the most steadfast and inspired practitioner of macrobiotics I have ever known. She taught with patience and love and even offered to help Aveline when it was discovered she had cancer. But Cecile had a heart attack which resulted in discovery of an inoperable tumor in her pleural cavity. When she passed, she weighed only 85 pounds. It is very important that ill people understand that macrobiotics is a powerful tool to heal, but it is evolving and we face many unknown variables. Too many ill people have faithfully followed the macrobiotic way and ultimately blamed their blossoming cancers on themselves for "not believing hard enough", being "too dogmatic in their practice", being "too liberal in their practice", continuing to live with a non macrobiotic spouse, etc. etc. etc. I have read many tales of the emotional suffering this rigid and thoughtless defense of the diet has caused families. It does a great disservice to our community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by user:69.110.138.173 (talk • contribs)

I'm sure you know this anyways, but these clarifications can only be used in the article if you can cite them to reliable sources. For obvious reasons, facts you know to be true from first-hand experience can't be presented as encyclopedic. --Ds13 (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You will note that these details were presented in the Discussion page and not within the article itself. Within the article itself I have presented only those facts that are verifiable through creditable sources other than my experience or opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.85.134 (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Some points

A lot of good points have been made in order to improve the Wikipedia article(s) on macrobiotics. I have read extensively on macrobiotics, taken a cooking course, and have followed the cooking guidelines myself for over one year with good results so far. Here are my responses to those points:

1. Wikipedia entries on macrobiotic cooking and lifestyle (and especially edits) should be very closely reviewed by Wikipedia editors. The goal of macrobiotic cooking is to balance acid and alkaline factors in the human diet, although this approach has little in common with most of the books now being published with the words Acid/Alkaline in the title. Macrobiotic cooking is organized around a collection of more pH-neutral dishes, to state it briefly; quite a number of variables are involved in creating any one macrobiotic recipe. As you can imagine, vested interests in the global meat and dairy industries are unhappy about the threat posed by the global macrobiotic community, and for that reason I was unsurprised to see one Wikipedia editor's comment that most of an existing entry on macrobiotics had been deleted.

2. The deaths of macrobiotic community members from various causes has occurred. Keep in mind, however, that we all die. Some of the prominent members of the "macro" community apparently had longstanding cigarette smoking habits before starting macrobiotics. I have heard many stories about how hard it is for any smoker to quit that habit either temporarily or permanently. Most biographical notes on George Ohsawa refer to his use of cigarettes during his lifetime. Michio Kushi has also been a cigarette smoker. Smokers are at greater risk of both lung and heart diseases. Wives of smokers are at greater risk for cancer of the cervix, which is the disease that claimed Aveline Kushi at far too young an age; even the world's most perfect diet cannot defeat risky health behaviors like smoking. Cecile Tovah Levin, a certified macrobiotic instructor and nonsmoker, lived decades after recovering from leukemia in her twenties, then finally succumbed to heart disease in her eighties. In short, the vast majority of those following the macro dietary approach have come to macrobiotics with preexisting health issues. What I find remarkable and inspirational about these people and other leaders in the macrobiotic community is in fact their success in overcoming serious health challenges for many decades.
3. The most authoritative websites with lists of books for greater study of macrobiotics include The George Ohsawa Macrobiotic Foundation and The Kushi Institute. The Amazon website also lists quite a few macrobiotic cookbooks. For those who live far from any organized macrobiotics classes, the following website is managed by an authoritative macrobiotic instructor: http://www.macroamerica.com/index.php

Canyonwriter (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ohsawa's macrobiotic diet seeks to balance Yin and Yang. What your instructors told you about acidity and alkalinity is their own interpretation and has nothing to do with the subject of this article, Ohsawan macrobiotics. BTW, there is no indication that your body has trouble balancing its pH on a normal diet, just as you it's not espececially healthy to keep the room temperature equal to your body temperature.

Although it is great that people overcame their health issues, individual success stories don't prove anything. Other people smoke, drink, whore and eat raw meat and then die when they get run over by an omnibus at the age of 100, but that doesn't prove that smoking, drinking, eating raw meat and unprotected casual sex are healthy.

Ohsawa in particular claimed that macrobiotics could cure schizophrenia. Kushi claimed that it could cure cancer. Both claims are unsubstantiated, and personally I think it's cynical to make such grandiose claims. Maikel (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Seitan

The article omits Seitan. Maikel (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I haven't put up the neutrality tag, but I would like to second it. Much of the article reads like a promotional text on macrobiotics rather than an encyclopedic text. I'll pick out one egregious example:

Macrobiotic methodology was utilized by many of the long-lived traditional cultures, such as the Incas, the Chinese in the Han Dynasty, etc. George Ohsawa drew from Oriental and Japanese folk medicine to create his version of this traditional philosophy of health.

The Incas weren't exactly a "long-lived traditional culture" (whatever that's supposed to mean), they existed from ca. 1200 until their extinction by decidedly unmacrobiotic conquistadores in 1572. I'm sure the Incas had their own ideas about healthy living, but I very much doubt that those had much to do with Georges Ohsawas'. If you're trying to latch on to someone else's success story (and if you want to stay in the same region) I suggest you pick the Mayas who have been around since ca. 1800 BC. Another point is that the connection between personal and cultural longevity is moot -- a healthy diet won't help you much if your neighbouring king happens to be a psychotic, goldhungry, twisted fuck who has developed delusions of how bathing in your kin's blood will cure his searing headache and chronic impotence.
Next, you can't create something traditional from different traditions. Pickled cabbage might be traditional in Germany and pizza in Italy, but a "pizza con sauerkrauti" ain't traditional. Either Ohsawa merely passed on a (singular!) tradition, or he came up with something new. Make up your mind.
I'd appreciate your feedback, thanks. Maikel (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume the writer meant something like "traditional cultures of people who live long lives" rather than "traditional cultures that lasted a long time." (I have no idea whether individual Incas lived long lives.) But your "pizza con sauerkrauti" example is right on. Aardnavark (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You got it mixed up - yang is stimulating (man principle) yin is conserving (woman principle) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.242.66.205 (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Move proposal

See Talk:Ume#Requested move. Badagnani (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction?

In the philosophy section, it states, "Nightshade vegetables, including tomatoes, peppers, potatoes, eggplant; also spinach, beets and avocados are forbidden (or used sparingly) in macrobiotic cooking, as they are considered extremely yin."

Yet in the section about yin and yang, it states that no foods are forbidden. "Macrobiotic eating follows the principle of balance (called yin and yang in China). Products that are extreme are not suggested for regular use. No foods are forbidden, but better quality natural foods are always suggested."

Bmorebmore (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"University of Tulane"?

...meaning Tulane University in New Orleans? Or is there, elsewhere in the world, a "University of Tulane" about which Google is unaware? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.144.229 (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)