Talk:Macrobiotic diet

Porter?

In the Concept section a reference "Porter" is cited without details. Further, this reference should be replaced:

• Nancy Stalker (2009) "The Globalisation of Macrobiotics as Culinary Tourism and Culinary Nostalgia", Asian Medicine 5 (2009) 1–18

since the rubric "macrobiotic" is international, attracting patrons to known dishes. Rgdboer (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Just checked the history of this article. The book is by Jessica Porter *Porter, Jessica (13 September 2004). The hip chick's guide to macrobiotics: a philosophy for achieving a radiant mind and fabulous body. Penguin. ISBN 9781583332054. Retrieved 22 March 2011.

I have not read this book, but from the title alone it does not sound reliable to me. If a replacement can be found I would be supportive. Veg Historian (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for digging this book out of History. GB link has only the Bibliography, which shows Macrobiotic.org.uk, demonstrating broad acceptance. The article might be split into "Macrobiotic cure" and "Macrobiotic fare" since the criticism is so strong for disease treatment. The Porter citations include Yin/Yang foundations, which appear weak to me. Looking for better sources. The shoddy treatment of a widely used vegetarian scheme denigrates this Encyclopedia. The suggested split would give a culinary gloss, and a separate medical disclaimer. — Rgdboer (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Looking led to this statement from Shimacrobiotics.org: "However, George Ohsawa, the father of macrobiotics, changed principles of yin and yang to structural and physical characteristics. Based on his definitions of yin and yang, Earth is solid beneath our feet and compact than it is more yang. While, heaven is wide and expansive so more yin." Such a shift undermines the whole premise of yin/yang nutrition. Hexagram 1, called Heaven, is all yang lines, while hexagram 2, called Earth, is all yin lines. Ohsawa reverses this polarity! Still seeking a source that presents the primordial chemistry of food in terms of yin-yang. — Rgdboer (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

German orgins completely ignored?

German version of this topic mentions: "The modern Macrobiotics as “Lehre von a long life” was written in 1797 during the work of Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland." ("Die neuzeitliche Makrobiotik als „Lehre von einem langen Leben“ wurde im Wesentlichen 1797 durch das Werk von Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland geprägt.")

Dutch version of this topic mentions: "Macrobiotics is a nutritional and health philosophy developed by the Germans Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland and Theodor Hahn in the 19th century." ("Macrobiotiek is een voedings- en gezondheidsleer en is ontwikkeld door de Duitsers Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland en Theodor Hahn in de 19de eeuw.")

This has basically been integrated into [Anthroposophy] - which is also not mentioned anywhere?

If this is a different subject, in english, then at least at reference it? ~2026-31877-92 (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Any good sources? It sound wrong. Bon courage (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Safety claims and degrees of restriction

This article seems to have quite varying claims about how extreme the elimination involved is, which causes issues especially in the case of the safety claims.

Much of the article gives the impression that it's not far from a normal east-Asian vegetarian diet but with some woo about nightshades and mystical justifications for ratios, while other parts describe it as more restrictive, and some go as far as describing a 10-stage elimination culminating in only eating rice.

This is a very broad range, and I think any claims about safety must take this into account, since on the mild end it seems similar to vegetarian or vegan diets which are capable of being safe and nutritionally sufficient, whereas on the extreme end it seems quite clearly unsafe and nutritionally lacking.

A specific example where this could use more clarity is when the claim "A macrobiotic diet does not contain the nutrients needed by growing children" is made, the source material is discussing the extreme end where "animal products, fruits, and vegetables are gradually removed [...] until the ultimate goal is achieved of consuming only brown rice. Fluids are also severely restricted." The source is good and explains the danger of this, but because the degree of restriction isn't connected to the safety claim in the Wikipedia article, it would be very easy for the reader to conclude that the source is making a broad claim inclusive of the less restrictive versions which the majority of the Wikipedia page discusses.

In addition to being more specific about the type of diet which the various risk claims are connected to, I think the article would benefit from a better explanation of the range of dietary restrictions that "macrobiotic diet" can refer to and where most who partake in the diet fall on this range. TheAubergineMary (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Any sources in mind? Bon courage (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

"In common with many other types of quackery"

This text was in a sentence of the article sourced to page 63 of this book . I don't think it's an accurate summary of the source. The author lists a bunch of alternative medicine practices. Then she continues on and says some other practitioners "were not easily dismissed with the epithets of 'quack' or 'charlatan'". I don't think it's reasonable to read that Barbara Clow is herself calling the macrobiotic diet quackery. Perhaps it is, but this source does not say so. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly fair summary of a fairly obvious point. Bon courage (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The author throughout this section only uses "quack" in quotes; she's not calling something quackery herself, she's discussing medical criticism that prevaled in the specific time and place she's discussing. In the context of that chapter where macrobiotics is mentioned, the author is summarizing disputes over cancer treatments in the 1920s and '30s. Doctors frequently juxtaposed the "wild buffooneries" of the "quack" with the "splendid history of the advancement of medical science," implying that alternative treatments were not reputable or reliable because they were not "scientific." Powerful as these assumptions and rhetoric were, however, they do not bear up under close scrutiny: not only was the regular medical community divided over the merits of alternative treatments for cancer, but also it lacked a consistent, efficient set of criteria with which to evaluate theraputic innovations. This is the antecedent for not easily dismissed with the epithets of "quack" or "charlatan". Macrobiotics is brought up as an aside as a way to illustrate the difficulty in defining alternative medicine: Before we explore medical reactions to theraputic innovations in this era, we must stop to consider the meaning of "alternative medicine" in this context. Often scholars use the term to denote systems of healing that are philosophically as well as theraputically distinct from regular medicine: homeopathy, reflexology, rolfing, macrobiotics, and spiritual healing, to name a few, embody interpretations of health, illness, and healing that are not only different from, but also at odds with conventional medical opinion. Indeed, there is sometimes little else to justify lumping such therapies together under the rubric of "alternative medicine" beyond their "socio-politically defined marginal standing in the healthcare system. That brief mention appears to be the only time the macrobiotic diet is mentioned in the entire book. Not only is she not calling macrobiotics "quackery", this whole source is not very good for this article; ideally we'd have sources that are actually about macrobiotics, instead of sources about something else entirely that just mention macrobiotics once. Macrobiotics is quackery (especially when advertised as a treatment for cancer), but this book does not say that. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Indeed this is a secondary source for how Macrobiotics is viewed. If the quackery categorisation is the "medical criticism" (irrespective of whether it's also Clow's personal view or not), that is the mainstream knowledge that's worth sharing, necessarily so to abide by WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. Bon courage (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Could you please just read the source instead of guessing what it's about? Start at the beginning of chapter 3, and read to the end of page 63. Edit: apologies that was rude. This is my position on the source: it does not say the author considers macrobiotics to be quackery. It does not say that the medical field considers macrobiotics to be quackery. It does not say that medical professionals in the 1930s considered macrobiotics to be quackery. What it does say is that medical professionals in the 1930s called some (unspecified) treatments of cancer "quackery". The source uses the words "macrobiotics" and "quack" in close proximity without any implied or stated connection between them. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)