Talk:Macrobiotic diet/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

This may be a lot in a single message, but please see: WP:RS (we must go by the reliable sources), WP:MEDRS special requirements for medical related claims, WP:YESPOV we can tell facts in Wikipedia's voice, WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI in relation to pseudoscience, WP:LEAD: the lead should summarize the article's body's important points. Finally, WP:NOTFORUM (please suggest sources and specific changes). We also have a WP:FIXBIAS essay on how to address perceived bias in articles. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

[ec] "RS" means "reliable source". See WP:RS for details.

• "Are keto, paleo and other fad diets safe? [...] Macrobiotic Diet: This diet used to be very restrictive because it was based heavily on brown rice and water. However, it has grown more expansive and now includes some seafood, nuts, seeds, legumes and other grains."[1]

• "Fad diet leaves Gwyneth Paltrow with brittle bones"[2]

• "A macrobiotic diet (or macrobiotics) is a fad diet fixed on ideas about types of food drawn from Zen Buddhism. The diet attempts to balance the supposed yin and yang elements of food and cookware."[3]

• "The 10 Most Famous Fad Diets of All Time [...] The Macrobiotic Diet May Be Rigid and Unhealthy"[4]

• "Examples of popular fad diets include: Macrobiotic Diet"[5]

• "Legitimate Weight Loss Tips You Should Steal From Fad Diets: Even the most fringe of weight-loss plans can have some useful takeaways. [...] The basic tenet of macrobiotic eating is that whole foods contain energy that will be transferred to the body, often via a vegetarian menu of organic and locally grown whole foods with an emphasis on whole grains and produce."[6]

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Yup it's a fad diet alright, and no sane source disputes that so we must simply WP:ASSERT it. Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

LOL NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THESE SOURCES RELIABLY CLAIMS THAT MACROBIOTIC IS A FAD DIET. it's extremely dishonest of you to be linking blogs and tabloid news stories as reliable scientific sources--or more relevant to this case, a reliable historic source. in one paragraph of this article there are claims that this diet originated over 400 years ago, yet the article itself, and so many of the editors on this talk page, are claiming that it's a "fad," which does not fit the basic definition. to re-iterate what was said about, there is very clear bias in this article, but it's also so weirdly inconsistent the article comes across quite poorly. aeymxq (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The cited Encyclopedia of Diet Fads is not a blog or tabloid news story. Here on Wikipedia we reflect what good sources say and for WP:FRINGE topics like this, we need to make it clear when woo is woo. Alexbrn (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The term "fad" is not encyclopedic. It is no sense neutral, objective, or scientific. It is not a technical or quantifiable term. If our contention is that macrobiotic diets aren't supported by neutral, objective, or scientific evidence, then that's what we say. We do not use words such as "fad" (or "ditsy", or "trendy", or "poser", or any other synonyms for "silly") to describe a topic on Wikipedia, even if an allegedly reliable source uses them. And let's be bold here, brothers and sisters: any source claiming that this or any other WP-worthy nutrition regimen can dispassionately be categorised a "fad" is suspect on that ground alone, and probably should not be used as a citation. Laodah 00:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Laodah, it is very much a fad diet. A fad diet is a pseudoscientific diet that makes bogus or unsubstantiated health claims. You can buy mainstream nutritional textbooks, they always have a chapter on fad diets. Atkins diet and the macrobiotic diet are textbook 101 material for fad diets as they always make it on the list. The originators of the macrobiotic diet were quite extreme they claimed the diet could cure Aids, cancer and practically every disease on the planet. Obviously there are watered-down versions of this diet which are more acceptable but if you are talking about the traditional strict macrobiotic diet which most of the references mention then it has been deeply criticized for making far-fetched claims unsupported by reliable evidence. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Why were my comments removed?

I would like to know by whose authority MY comments recently from late 2020, and an entire important discussion about the "fad diet" issue, have been deleted from this page? What are you here, a bunch of trolls? In fact, I will add, this page in no way reflects actual discussion. Someone has been "cleaning it out" to make it look like there is consensus when there is not. And that is very poor wiki behavior.Harborsparrow (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You never posted here before. Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I failed to log in, but I certainly DID post here: curprev 03:48, 15 November 2020‎ 173.71.95.207 talk‎ 15,293 bytes 0‎ →‎I believe "fad diet" should be removed from this article undo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harborsparrow (talk • contribs)

Now that I am logged in, I am restoring my deleted comments FOR THE RECORD

See next section below. That was me, but it doesn't matter WHO it was, it should not have been deleted.Harborsparrow (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It not deleted, but archived. See WP:AATP. Alexbrn (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It was deleted. Older material ABOVE IT was not removed. It was selected for "archival" as you put it, to make it look like the dispute was settled. Archives should encompass an entire page neutrally, removing all comments for a fresh start. And it was neither old enough, long enough, or mean enough to merit archiving. In my view, selectively deleting inconvenient comments from a Talk page is a mean way of suppressing dissent and simply should never be done. I don't author here often enough to know how to report such misbehavior, but that deserves reporting to whomever deals with bad wiki behavior.Harborsparrow (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Harborsparrow I have archived hundreds of talk-pages. Wikipedia rules say we can archive stale discussions. The discussion had not been edited in 5 months. I usually archive content that usually is 8 months to a year or more older but in this case it was archived because the discussion was from an anonymous IP address and was unproductive because it was raising the same points from another discussion. You have now admitted that IP address was yours. The content was not deleted it was merely archived. You say older material above it was not removed, you are correct about this but this is because another user had recently responded to that discussion. We do not archive recent comments. This is not about "selectively deleting inconvenient comments" it was about archiving a stale discussion that I believed had come to an end. In the future I will archive content over 8 months just to be on the safe side but seriously a lot of talk-pages do get clogged up with old discussions that are long finished. Archiving improves talk-pages. I can assure you there was no ill-will involved in the archiving. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have posted to Wikipedia:Help desk#I need help with a troll that it was a routine archiving of three whole old threads. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

At the top of this page, there is a link "Archives: 1". Click on the 1 and you will find the archived thread at the bottom of the page. Yes, it was archived, not deleted.

Before you roundly reject what somebody says, you should think about how much experience you have and how much more experience the other person could have. Then adjust your modesty level accordingly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The "fad diet" opener needs to go

The Encyclopedia of Fad Diets is written by two regular people who don't know anything more than any other lay person. They are not certified nutritionists, and the sources they cite are no more credible than they are. Followers of any diet are likely to make over-zealous claims, so the fact that somebody has claimed something outrageous does not mean that an entire system of ideas is pernicious. These days, we've even had physicians recommending against wearing masks during COVID-19. Reputable websites such as WebMd--which is published by physicians--are claiming the a macrobiotic diet does have value for some conditions especially, such as heart disease. So to dismiss it out of hand, based on the evidence provided, seems unreasonable to me. But it is clear that someone here is going to troll this article without mercy. While this article should not give in to partisan pressure to rave about macrobiotics, neither should it dismiss it completely as it basically does. I would like permission to make some corrections and then have those of you who are so stuck on the "fad diet" opener make constructive comments instead of acting like trolls.Harborsparrow (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

And BTW, a modern and streamlined style of macrobiotic cooking is being taught on public television every day by Christina Pirello (see . Are we really going to claim that this excellent and popular vegan cooking show is based on quackery? Come on! Let's be a little more open minded. We don't have to be zealots either, but this long-frozen article completely dissing a good system seem out of order.Harborsparrow (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This was already answered.[7] The situation has not changed. christinacooks.com is not a pertinent source for anything encyclopedic. Alexbrn (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You are not the arbiter of all things, Alexbrn. I plan to make some hopefully constructive changes to this article, including removal of "fad diet" from the opening sentence, and I hope you will allow the community at large to weigh in and not act like a troll. If you think it is a fad diet, see if you can get a community of people to back you up instead of acting high-handedly to control everything. Keeping the strangle-hold on an article is very poor wiki behavior. To my thinking, there is plenty of reason to dispute the "fad diet" claim. Nothing you have posted has proven your point.Harborsparrow (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I do recognize that your concerns are worth listening to. I can definitely see that there could be, or should be, a section in this article that clearly delineates criticisms which have been validly leveled at the movement in the past. But by putting that phrase where it is, you tend to guarantee that all readers will believe from the get-go that macrobiotics has nothing at all useful to offer, and that seems not justified. Could you and I possibly message each other privately, rather than duke this out here? I'd like to find an approach that you can live with AND that I can live with AND that others would consider neutral. Maybe you and I could experiment, offline somewhere or in one of our sandboxes, on some alternatives. Would you be open to such experimentation leading, possibly, to altering this article in the future? I know that you will need some convincing, and that's okay.Harborsparrow (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Please keep the discussions here. You are basically making all the mistakes every booster of some kind of fad or quackery makes when they comes here, rooted in a basic failure to understand what Wikipedia is and how its policies and guidelines apply, particularly: WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is not a venue for WP:ADVOCACY. If you want wider input try posting at WP:FT/N but I can tell you now that unless some startling new sources are produced this article shall say that this is a fad diet, and the consensus of the wider community is behind that. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This page clearly uses biased terms to discuss real social and historical phenomena. As written, it violates the ethics of neutral reporting. Labels of quackery and fad diet are clearly loaded with negative valence, and should be rejected in favor of objective descriptions, or proper contextualization regarding points-of-view. The article should be re-evaluated in light of wikipedia's guidelines regarding neutral point of view. anonymous user 16:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]) 18:00, 20 April 2021 2601:280:5a00:7a90:41fb:585d:4bf:e80e (UTC)

Once again, my edits were removed

We are clearly in an edit war. My comments, which I restored, have been removed in the past few minutes from this Talk page. What the heck, people? This is a TALK PAGE. It should be sacrosanct as long as everyone is trying to be respectful. Removing an entire thread from a Talk page because someone personally doesn't like it is trolling and just pitiful.Harborsparrow (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

...When you find yourself in a hole, it is always worthwhile to consider the possibility of stopping digging. Just a thought.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

There is research

This article starts out extremely biased right from the first sentence. The article claims there is no scientific research supporting the benefits of a macrobiotic diet, that is completely false.

Porrata-Maury C, Hernández-Triana M, Ruiz-Álvarez V, et al. Ma-Pi 2 macrobiotic diet and type 2 diabetes mellitus: pooled analysis of short-term intervention studies. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2014;30 Suppl 1:55-66.

Fallucca F, Porrata C, Fallucca S, Pianesi M. Influence of diet on gut microbiota, inflammation and type 2 diabetes mellitus. First experience with macrobiotic Ma-Pi 2 diet. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2014;30 Suppl 1:48-54.

Fallucca F, Fallucca S, Pianesi M. The effects of the MA-PI 2 macrobiotic diet in the treatment of type 2 diabetes and diet-induced metabolic acidosis. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2014;30(8):659-660.

Porrata C, Sánchez J, Correa V, et al. Ma-pi 2 macrobiotic diet intervention in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. MEDICC Rev. 2009;11(4):29-35.

Soare A, Khazrai YM, Del Toro R, et al. The effect of the macrobiotic Ma-Pi 2 diet vs. the recommended diet in the management of type 2 diabetes: the randomized controlled MADIAB trial. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2014;11:39.

Supplement to The effect of the macrobiotic Ma-Pi 2 diet vs. the recommended diet in the management of type 2 diabetes. MA-PI 2 Macrobiotic Diet Daily Meal Plans and Recipes. Nathan DM, Kuenen J, Borg R, et al. Translating the A1C assay into estimated average glucose values. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(8):1473-1478.

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/flashback-friday-benefits-of-a-macrobiotic-diet-for-diabetes/

Have you got any research that meets our standards for this project, as these do not? Try reading WP:RS and WP:MEDRS for medical claims. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

unprofessional behavior

there seems to be an ideological battle going on in this entry and it appears very unprofessional and not consistent with Wikipedia's goals. please stop this childish behavior. information on macrobiotics should stick to an explanation and history there of; not one's personal beliefs. 126.163.159.20 (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Unless you have any specific suggestions for improving the article, you have come to the wrong place. You did not even say whether what you object to and what you call "personal beliefs" is the personal beliefs of the macrobiotic diet fans, the science refuting them, or both. So, you have not made the first step on the way to professional behaviour: clearly say what you see as the problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

stating that it is a fad diet is incorrect and is a personal opinion it's states at the bottom that has not had extensive clinical research so that proves the point that is neither correct nor wrong so a personal statement should not have place so please refrain Isabelle from trolling an ancient way of eating for her own opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:RFC&redirect=no 82.132.230.225 (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Which edit are you trying to suggest? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

fad diet 82.132.223.48 (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

"unprofessional": AFAIK, no wiki editor is paid for this job, so it's all automatical "unprofessional". Second: Macrobiotics is a fad diet, it's woo, it's quackery, it's… bull. And has always been and will forever be. --jae (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, the source does not say it is a fad diet. If we take the logic that it is a fad diet just because it is in a popular book called "fad diets", then we could have to call malnutrition a fad diet because it's in there too. At 100 plus years, can it really be said to be a "fad" any more?

FWIW, it's not a fad diet. It's just a traditional Japanese diet. The marketing of it might be "faddish" but the diet has several hundred years worth of tradition, 1,000s if you count back to China where the culture came from.

I'll look into this but I also think the association with Zen Buddhism is incorrect (I suspect because it used to be marketed as Zen Macrobiotics). It's roots are actually in Wuxing (Taoist 5 element theory). Again, the Taijitu (Yin-Yang symbol) is Toaist rather than Buddhist.

--82.132.218.73 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Fad diet. Wikipedia follows sources and calls out woo. Alexbrn (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

No, read the source. It does not say that. It's actually a quite reasonable summary, except that it does not go into detail about why the State came down so heavily upon it. (It was subjected to book burnings etc). --82.132.218.73 (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The WP:LEDE summarizes the entire article, and does not just rely on its local sources. The fad designation is sourced. Alexbrn (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

These 82.132 o2 mobile IPs are very likely to be the banned user Iyo-farm. I have raised a concern about this on the admin board [8]. I support a range-block if it is possible to do. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, read what I wrote. The source - which is one repeated twice - does not refer to the diet as a fad diet. And given that the source refers to malnutrition as a fad diet, does that suggest it is a strong source? --82.132.186.1 (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of references on the article that describe it as a fad diet such as [9], you are ignoring those and cherry-picking one book in the lead. If you read the nutritional literature, macrobiotics has been described as a fad since the 1970s. For example Rynearson, Edward H. (1974). "Americans Love Hogwash". Nutrition Reviews. 32 (1): 1–14. has section dismissing macrobiotics as a dangerous fad diet. There is also "A Practical Guide to Fad Diets" [10] which has a section on macrobiotics and "Food Fads" in the Encyclopedia of Food Sciences and Nutrition (Second Edition), 2003 mentions macrobiotics "The Zen-macrobiotic diet has been associated with deaths. The ever-increasing restrictive nature of this diet is such that ultimately only cereals are used, with disastrous consequences" [11]. Your agenda has been to claim no references classify the macrobiotic diet as a fad. That is false. Most nutritional textbooks have a section on "fad diets" or "food faddism" and they all list macrobiotics as being a classic example. Your repeated removals of "fad diet" from the article is entirely inaccurate. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

There are two references. One clearly does not. I can't read the second (R M Hanning, S H Zlotkin, 1985) but its title & summary refers to "Unconventional eating practices and their health implications", so I don't know which it applies to Macrobiotics, "unconventional" or pejoratively as "faddist". As with the first reference, I doubt the author here read it either. Unconventional to whom? One could pull out as many sources that also describe Macrobiotics as what it was, a traditional Japanese diet, therefore that should be reflected in the lede (also that it has lifestyle elements, not just dietary, as I wrote). The second paper also includes vegetarianism which is hardly a "fad", & not listed as such on its topic page either.

So why the bias?

Macrobiotics is only "unconventional" from a Standard American Diet point of view, in the same way as someone eating a Full English Breakfast only & every day in Japan would be faddist or unconventional (and clearly a risk to their health). In Japan it would just be a highly traditional diet.

The lede is too NPOV, & the attribution to Zen Buddhism is factually incorrect. --82.132.225.27 (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You are talking nonsense and have no sources to back up your claims. The macrobiotic diet is nothing like Japanese cuisine which is strongly based on seafood, we have a whole article on it. Rynearson's paper [12] contains a section dismissing macrobiotics as a dangerous fad "Without doubt, the Zen Macrobiotic Diets are the most dangerous form of hogwash. Adherence to these diets, of which there are ten, has caused uncounted deaths and untold suffering. Fortunately, these diets are so unusual that they appeal to but a few; they are used largely by young mystics -many in Berkeley, California, and in Cambridge, Massachusetts and ends by describing it as type of "food cultism or faddism -or more simply, hogwash". This is just one example. There are about 20 papers from the 1970s and early 80s that list macrobiotics as a dangerous fad. Many more recent sources exist. People have died on this diet in the United States but most people in Japan have never heard of it.

Macrobiotics is not a "traditional diet", it is pseudoscientific nonsense. It started with George Ohsawa and his disciple Michio Kushi. Michio Kushi was a quack and stated that macrobiotics could cure AIDS, homosexuality and cancer - there are many books which document this, i.e. Frederic Stare's Fad-Free Nutrition. Ohsawa actually took the name macrobiotic from Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland's book a crank naturopath. There is nothing traditional about the diet, it has its origins from charlatans and quacks and all nutrition textbooks that cover "fads" and food encyclopedia's classify it as a fad diet. Next you will be telling us the Atkins diet is not a fad. You are clueless about this subject. Instead of repeatedly evading your block actually go and read a book and educate yourself. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

"Fad diet" is just a term with a negative connotation that doesn't mean anything. Look at the list of diets. Intermittent fasting, which has tons of support in the medical literature, is listed as a "fad diet", but fruitarianism isn't. --Isabela31 (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

See Food faddism for a description of what a fad diet means. The term is not "meaningless". Wikipedia follows sources and if a diet if faddish according to those, that should be relayed for proper, neutral encyclopedic coverage. It would seem a fruit-only diet is a type of faddim[13] so this should be reflected on Wikipedia too. Alexbrn (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Isabela31 - fad diet is just another name for a pseudoscientific or non-scientific diet whose far-fetched health claims have never been demonstrated and are usually misinformation. Such diets usually result in weight loss due to calorie restriction but nothing else. If you read the Wikipedia article on intermittent fasting it says "As of 2021, it remains uncertain whether intermittent fasting could prevent cardiovascular disease" and "Intermittent fasting is not recommended for people who are not overweight, and the long-term sustainability of intermittent fasting is unknown as of 2018". Intermittent fasting is indeed reported in the medical literature but so was the Atkins diet back in the day and even the crazy carnivore diet is now being studied so just because something is being reported in the medical literature does not mean it is not a fad. So far its health claims have never been demonstrated.

If you look online at who actually promotes intermittent fasting it is low-carb pseudoscientists like Gary Taubes, David Perlmutter, Mark Hyman, Steven Gundry etc. It is not supported by any health agency. Fruitarianism is indeed a fad diet, someone removed that from the lead of the Wikipedia article which should be put back but this is all irrelevant to this article. Macrobiotics is a classic example of a fad diet. Some diets actually start out as fads but obtain scientific evidence to support them, for example the Mediterranean diet started out as a fad but now has much scientific evidence behind it, it no longer considered a fad. The term fad diet is far from meaningless. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "fad diet" does not apply to macrobiotics in 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

By Wikipedia's own article defining Fad diets in 2022, the phrase does not apply to macrobiotics as it is being practiced and taught in 2022. All the information in this article is from an ancient book by (Ohsawa?) and nobody has done any of that stuff since the 1960's. Definitely it had all been sideline by the 1980's. Macrobiotics "moved on". In fact, macrobiotics does indeed fit every criterion that the article about fad diets say is healthy: Fad_diet#Healthy_diets. Furthermore, as was pointed out here several times before, the people who wrote the book "Fad Diet", coining the term, were regular folks, not nutritionists, and there is not a single source in medical literature today, that I can find, that considers macrobiotics to be a "fad diet". (Redacted) Incidentally, don't lecture me about archiving Talk pages because they get too long; the Talk page was not long, but it was immediately archived after I was threatened. I joined this wiki in 2006 and this article needs to be released from trolling and allowed to be updated in a reasonable manner to reflect the reality of macrobiotic ideas being taught in 2022. Harborsparrow (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The biggest tragedy is, that macrobiotics in 2022 is one of the best places to learn to do low salt, low oil cooking--known to be really useful for people wrestling to control heart disease. Indeed, macrobiotic cooking and meal plans--as being done today--are bound to be some of the healthiest on the planet for such people. But many will never find it because of the perhaps well-meaning but misguided fanaticism of the people controlling this article. Low salt, low oil, delicious vegetarian cuisine is simply not easy to find. How ironic it is that the controllers of this article accuse those of us hoping to remove "fad diet" from this article of being fanatics. Harborsparrow (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evidence free rant??

I just archived an evidence free rant per WP:NOTFORUM, but the software didn't allow me to leave an edsum. It would have said "Evidence free rant removed per WP:NOTFORUM" and wanted you all to know. The archives are easily viewed using the links to the archives of the page provided. - Roxy the dog 16:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Pulses ARE vegetables

Give me strength ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.97.111 (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Origin, founder

Why isn't Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland mentioned? He published "Makrobiotik oder Die Kunst, das menschliche Leben zu verlängern" (1796), 54 years before Sagen Ishizuka was born, and 97 years before George Ohsawa!?!

Perhaps the latter 2 formalised the 'diet', but it's surprising to not see any reference to what it seems to be the origin of he term. Adler Looks Jorge (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

As the article shows, macrobiotic treatment of diet is based on yin/yang analysis. Some compare it to an acid/base scale in chemistry. Hufeland, though a vegetarian proponent, may not have had this analysis in his work. The term "macrobiology" is called out by microbiology, so various interpretations may be expected. — Rgdboer (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Locked?

Why is this page locked? This is very unusual for such a niche diet-related page.

Anyways it's clearly written in a very negatively biased way and we should do something about it. Pages like this, that are clearly influenced by some sort of industry bias, make Wikipedia look bad. If you archive this thread you're just proving my point. Jay855a (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Locked due to drive by IPs and new accounts making POV edits and putting vandalism onto the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

LOL. The whole article is vandalism and bias and propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.97.111 (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Bias in text about macrobiotic diet

I feel the text about macrobiotic diet is very biased and subjective. I can hear a judgemental viewpoint underpinning the whole article and towards the dietary guidelines, rather than a neutral curiosity and openness about the topic. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be non biased and simply for the sharing of information?

Apparently it is according to the Wikipedia guidelines: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.

This specific article seems to contradict this very guideline.

To me the macrobiotic diet sounds like a very wholesome and nourishing way to eat - eating seasonally, organically and without toxins, correct me if i'm wrong in thinking those sound are good things. It's definitely much better than the mainstream diets that most people adopt - take aways, high fat greasy foods, processed ready meals, processed non organic animal products full of hormones and antibiotics, high sugar and antibiotic filled dairy.

I feel it's very concerning that you've labelled the macrobiotic diet as a 'fad' diet and shared the info here with obvious bias and intention to influence in a certain direction. 2A02:C7C:6E40:AE00:709E:8E94:5875:601A (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

A WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't even know what these short hands mean lol i'm new to commenting on posts - deffo need some education around it. I'll review and Google it 2A02:C7C:6E40:AE00:559B:68E6:F8FC:BF3D (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't even know what these short hands mean That is why you can click on them and find out. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I will, thank you 2A02:C7C:6E40:AE00:C0C0:B078:EC4D:6DD9 (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage i think this kind of response feels a bit dismissive: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

the original poster seems legitimately concerned that the article is not accurately summarizing the sources, though i understand that they may have not be so clear about this concern

there seems to be some confusion about the definition of a "macrobiotic diet," and whether it is "nothing but whole grains" (according to one cited source) or if it is "a diet consisting mostly of vegetables, fruits, and whole grains" which (according to another cited source) "is associated with general health benefits and lower risk for several diseases" dzahsh (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You have misunderstood what the OP wrote, which had nothing to do with "summarizing the sources". Bon courage (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree that FAD DIET is a denigratory description. (a) Macrobiotics is not a 'diet', but a philosophy of life, of which the diet forms just a part. (b) It is a sincere philosophy based on age-old notions of balance, a concept echoed in many religions and approaches to life, for instance Hinduism, which identifies three gunas (qualities) in existence: dull, balanced and over-active (tamasic, sathwic and rajasic). (c) Of course warnings of fanaticism are appropriate, but fanaticism is a risk in any way of life or dietary plan! Countless people have benefited from the principles of Macrobiotics and I speak from personal experience and that of many close friends.

HOW CAN THE DISMISSIVE ATTITUDE BE CORRECTED? HOW CAN I EDIT THIS PAGE? WHO CAN? TruthIan (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The goal of Wikipedia is to summarize the way topics are covered in reliable, independent sources. The best sources so far consider the macrobiotic diet a fad diet based on mysterious mechanisms with no evidence of effectiveness. If you want to change the article, present some high-quality sources. Your own personal experiences are not relevant. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Updated at last to less derogatory

I have been able to answer many of the criticisms above, including the mention of of Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland TruthIan (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The content you are adding is WP:OR and not properly sourced. Your edits have been disrupting the article. We have good WP:RS in the lead, your edits are not helpful when you are whitewashing good sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)