Ayurveda, macrobiotic diets, and cancer-fighting nutrition

Hi,

I've been hearing from several different people about an Ayurvedic approach to macrobiotic dieting that supposedly helped individuals overcome cancer, but I haven't been able to track down any specific details on it anywhere. If anyone happens to have some resources or reading material, I would truly appreciate it.
Also, if anyone here knows of any reputable Ayurveda masters...

You might want to look into Whole Foods Market; I believe they’ve been putting together some weekend macrobiotics workshops lately, though if I recall correctly from skimming their website, they seem to be geared more toward people who are already in pretty good health rather than those looking for a total overhaul.🙂

Ayurveda and macrobiotics represent two entirely distinct dietary philosophies. You can think of Ayurveda as a branch of Indian cuisine tied closely to traditional natural medicine, whereas macrobiotics traces its roots back to Japan. The distinction is actually quite straightforward: Ayurvedic cooking frequently incorporates milk and dairy products, while macrobiotics strips them out entirely. I’m not certain if anyone in Washington, D.C. is practicing Ayurvedic healing, but there is a dedicated macrobiotic center in New York City located on Fifth Avenue that focuses heavily on supporting people dealing with various illnesses.

You can find plenty of information regarding all of this online

At the New York City location, they require you to complete an introductory weekend seminar called John Doe before you can move on to a private consultation with a macrobiotic advisor, Elvis Presley, who will then design a specific nutritional and therapeutic program tailored to your needs.

Betty Bennett10 said:Ayurveda and macrobiotics are two completely distinct dietary approaches—Ayurveda is essentially a form of Indian cuisine and holistic medicine, whereas macrobiotics has its roots in Japan. There is a very simple distinction: Ayurvedic cooking incorporates milk and dairy products, while macrobiotics eliminates them entirely. I am not sure if anyone in Washington, D.C. practices Ayurvedic healing, but there is a center in New York City located on Fifth Avenue that specializes in macrobiotics, specifically catering to those dealing with illnesses.

You can find more information about all of this online at

At the New York City location, they require you to complete an introductory weekend workshop called John Doe, after which you can schedule a consultation with the macrobiotic advisor Elvis Presley, who will then design a personalized nutrition and treatment plan.

Completely different? Just because of milk and dairy?

I lost touch with an acquaintance of mine who practiced Ayurvedic nutrition, and honestly, I never noticed any real difference between what he used to prepare and what I read about macrobiotics. He didn't use milk or dairy products at all. He successfully healed advanced-stage skin cancer through his regimen.

Betty Bennett10 said:Ayurveda and macrobiotics are two entirely distinct dietary philosophies—think of Ayurveda as a blend of Indian culinary traditions and holistic medicine, whereas macrobiotics finds its roots in Japan. There is a very straightforward distinction here: Ayurvedic cooking embraces milk and dairy products, while macrobiotics avoids them altogether. As for whether anyone in Washington, D.C. practices Ayurvedic healing, I couldn't say for certain; however, there is certainly activity regarding macrobiotics over at John Doe on Fifth Avenue, where they focus heavily on supporting those dealing with health issues.

You can find plenty more information about all of this online at

At John Doe, they require you to complete an introductory weekend seminar called John Doe before you can move on to a private consultation with a macrobiotic advisor, Elvis Presley, who will then tailor a specific nutritional and therapeutic regimen just for you.

Oooops, sorry!😵

Right now, I’m following macrobiotic principles because I'm currently undergoing some alternative health treatments, and my therapist prescribed this specific diet. Honestly, once I finish this phase, I don't plan on sticking with it—mostly because the whole approach feels way too restrictive for my taste, and frankly, the theory behind it has some pretty massive holes in it. I really value consistency!

Here are the macrobiotic principles I found online:

1. Traditional diet—eating what people in the region where you were born and raised have eaten for thousands of years.
2. Eating seasonally—you know, like eating seasonal fruits and veggies rather than trying to find strawberries in the middle of winter.
3. Eating locally grown food.

Their food pyramid is actually quite similar to the classic one—grains, vegetables, and legumes form the base.
The only difference is that they completely cut out the stuff usually found at the top of the traditional pyramid (things like sweets and meat), which are meant to be eaten in moderation anyway.

So, what’s the problem here?
Personally, I absolutely agree that we should be eating way more whole grains, vegetables, and legumes—things most of us have totally neglected lately. I also agree we shouldn't be overdoing it with meat, sugar, or highly processed junk... BUT

...if the whole point is to promote a "traditional" diet and eat local foods...
then I just don't get why the plates of American macrobioticians look exactly like the plates of Japanese macrobioticians!!????

1. I haven't exactly seen any rice paddies around here. Apparently, there might be tiny traces of rice grown in a couple of spots in the Midwest—but even that's questionable. We all know that in places like North Mexico, it's grown, but that definitely doesn't count as food grown within the immediate 93 miles radius of where an average American lives, which is what macrobiotics recommends.

2. Soy isn't grown here, or even in much of the US, in any significant amounts (maybe a little for livestock feed)—it certainly isn't part of our local traditional diet.

3. And don't even get me started on soy products—soy milk, tofu, and all that. My grandmothers and great-grandmothers had never even heard of those terms, let alone eaten them (that goes for things like seitan or tempeh, too—those aren't standard American fare).

4. Umeboshi plums, miso soup, nori seaweed—none of this has been grown or consumed in America since the seventh century. It's all imported from Japan, which is significantly 93 miles further away from the US
than our own local produce.
5. Milk and dairy are staples in the US and throughout the West, yet if they aren't eaten in China or Japan, does that mean we shouldn't eat them either?! Every culture has its differences based on geography; I don't live in Japan, so I really don't care what they choose not to eat. It's as if they're sitting back home saying Americans shouldn't eat certain things just because they don't, and then we're supposed to just stop?!
Muslims don't eat pork, many people in India don't eat beef, etc. Personally, I don't eat dogs, insects, or seaweed.

6. Tropical fruits—which Americans should supposedly avoid in a wide radius—but we have plenty of citrus, oranges, and peaches growing right here... and they are definitely closer to Washington, D.C. than umeboshi plums or rice would be!

If anyone truly wants to eat according to macrobiotic principles, they should take a look at what the old folks in rural America or coastal towns cook. They should stick to beans and greens, cornbread, cheese and cream, fish with sautéed greens, apples, grapes, local artisanal cheeses, piles of potatoes, pasta with homemade tomato sauce, barley porridge, and other traditional American dishes, instead of rice with tamari sauce, azuki beans, miso soup, and umeboshi plums!

When it comes to how restrictive this lifestyle actually is, macrobioticians end up cutting more than half of the foods we know and love from their diets.

1. Meat and all processed meat products
2. Eggs
3. Milk and dairy products
4. Certain fruits—things like lemons, oranges, mandarins, clementines, grapefruit, pineapple, bananas, kiwi, and mango
5. Specific vegetables: tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, mushrooms, potatoes, asparagus, zucchini, and spinach
6. Grains—anything that isn't strictly whole grain
7. Sugar, honey, chocolate, and anything containing them
8. Coffee and alcohol
9. Any kind of processed, frozen, canned, or vacuum-sealed food

They eat bread and dough very sparingly, fruit in tiny amounts, and when it comes to oils, I think they stick exclusively to sesame or corn oil (again, following those "traditional" rules here in the States). Apparently, they don't even value olive oil enough to consume it, which is wild because everyone knows olive oil is incredibly healthy.
But then again, olives aren't native to Japan, and it seems like Americans just follow foreign trends instead of sticking to what works for our own local traditions.

Honestly, if I were to strip everything mentioned above from my own diet, I don't think I'd make it through six months with any energy left. People always say you should enjoy your food, but these principles basically kill the joy of gastronomy!

Right now, I’ve been living on rice, steamed veggies, and a bit of soup for about five or six weeks, and I am already getting pretty tired of it.😢(

At the end of the day, I'm sticking to it because it clearly works when combined with other treatments, but like I said—I don't see myself doing this long-term. I truly believe you should be able to eat everything; food should be diverse, and no single ingredient should be mystified, banned, or forced upon you!

It's also considered taboo for macrobioticians to drink plain water, as they claim you should only have two glasses a day and only use the restroom three times daily. Everyone I've talked to about this—including one person who followed the diet for a full year—says that people eating this way end up looking gray, yellowish, and dehydrated. They look sort of lifeless and sluggish, with a dullness in their eyes, so it’s pretty clear that such a restrictive diet isn't great for the body in the long run.

That being said, I still support the core principles as long as they aren't followed fanatically. I think eating this way can be healthy if you allow for a little meat or some dairy and don't go cutting out half of your fruits and vegetables!

It’s true that we are looking at two quite distinct dietary approaches when it comes to actual food, primarily because the philosophy behind "natural" healing is similar enough that macrobioticians and Ayurvedic practitioners often find common ground. However, dairy isn't just a minor detail—Ayurvedic nutrition relies heavily on dairy products since it is fundamentally rooted in Indian cuisine, whereas macrobiotics rejects them entirely, viewing them as highly detrimental. Even the use of spices varies wildly. That said, I have no idea how an Ayurvedic practitioner would actually treat a specific illness because I lack that firsthand experience; my entire understanding of Ayurveda comes from just two books I read—one was an Ayurvedic cookbook, and the other was a book by Deepak Chopra 😬 which is where I discovered I have a Pitta constitution.

Kyle Lee7, I agree with everything you're saying, though macrobioticians don't really focus on locally grown food so much as food grown within specific climatic zones, which means Japanese food is what typically suits us. Regarding tradition, many of our own classic dishes actually fit into the macrobiotic kitchen—things like cornmeal, sauerkraut, barley porridge, and so on. But yes, I also find many of the ingredients used in macrobiotic diets to be unappealing, and I found it quite difficult to eat them while I was undergoing a macrobiotic regimen. The reason it's structured this way is simply because it was developed by the Japanese; it would be a wonderful thing if someone applied macrobiotic principles to our traditional American cuisine—Zlatko Nanić does something similar to that, and anyone can follow suit.

When it comes to treatment, however, I believe one should fully entrust themselves to those who possess actual experience in the field, because in those situations, things like umeboshi plums and nori seaweed serve a very specific medicinal purpose in the diet (perhaps there are equivalents in our local traditions, but I wouldn't know). Even if some macrobiotic rules and principles lean more toward the realm of belief, I still maintain that macrobiotics is a solid system to attempt when seeking alternative ways to manage illness. I would recommend it to anyone, and I would certainly apply it to myself again if I ever fell ill.

There is a massive thread on this forum, in the spirituality subforum I believe, regarding the use of macrobiotics to treat cancer; it is a very compelling read.

Kyle Lee7 said:Even plain water is considered taboo for macrobiotics enthusiasts, who insist on drinking exactly two glasses a day and urinating three times daily. Everyone I’ve ever spoken to regarding this topic—including one individual who followed the diet for an entire year—claims that people adhering to such a regimen end up looking gray, sallow, and dehydrated, almost appearing lifeless and sluggish, with a vacant stare in their eyes, which clearly suggests that such a restrictive lifestyle isn't beneficial for the body in the long run.

Now, this is the specific macrobiotic principle that I find most repulsive and dangerous, and honestly, I believe it caused me significant harm. Though, I have to admit—if heaven forbid I were forced back into it, I would probably turn to macrobiotics again regardless of the risks. I don't eat meat or eggs and keep dairy to an absolute minimum anyway, but I am specifically referring to the macrobiotic approach itself. The reason is simple: my own experience convinced me that it works, and I have encountered many others for whom macrobiotics was instrumental in their recovery.

Kyle Lee7, I am right there with you, signing my name to that sentiment.
Beyond that, when you consider the sheer exhaustion that comes with various treatments—let's say chemotherapy—one simply loses the will to fight for anything, let alone some bland, uninspired dish that tastes absolutely nothing like the comfort foods we grew up eating. Honestly, what is wrong with just returning to a sense of normalcy after fighting off the flu or something similar by serving up a bowl of good, old-fashioned American chicken noodle soup?
The Mediterranean diet is widely regarded as one of the healthiest ways to eat on the planet; it's familiar, it’s budget-friendly, and frankly, why bother inventing elaborate culinary fantasies when we already have perfection?

Jack Newman4 said:Kyle Lee7, I’m right there with you. 👏
Beyond that, when you're dealing with various intensive treatments—like chemotherapy—you just lose the will to live, let alone fight through some bland mush that tastes nothing like the food you grew up eating. What’s wrong with just getting back into the swing of things after the flu or something similar by having a good, old-fashioned bowl of homemade chicken soup?
Mediterranean cuisine is honestly one of the healthiest ways to eat in the world; it's what we're used to, it's affordable, so there really isn't any point in dreaming up wild fantasies.

I completely agree as well. However, since my father is very ill right now, I would try absolutely anything that showed tangible results. Over the last few days, I've been talking to people who managed to beat cancer using the Brezov diet. The issue is that my dad is already so weak and exhausted; he's lost 7 pounds in just the last week.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any information anywhere regarding an Ayurveda diet specifically for fighting cancer.

I believe the greatest value found in Ayurveda and macrobiotics lies in the wisdom of food combining—learning how to pair ingredients so they don't harm us (or using spices effectively so foods can be digested properly). The second major benefit is rejecting "modern" processed foods in favor of returning to organic options, much like how food was produced for centuries before chemicals became a thing.

Our ancestors probably knew exactly how to combine foods perfectly, but we've all become obsessed with fixed food combinations because of these "crazy" manufactured flavors. We don't need exotic ingredients; we have plenty of local, seasonal produce right here at home.

The only thing I wouldn't agree on is the idea that milk and dairy products were staples in Europe and America for centuries. Milk and cheese only became significant parts of the diet across most of Europe during the 20th century.

casualfox9 says
He's finally heading in tomorrow for an MRI, a CT scan, and appointments with a rheumatologist, an internist, and a cardiologist. I actually managed to talk him into going to a private clinic so he can get everything done at once; if he stayed on the public system, he'd be waiting weeks just to get the scans scheduled.

casualfox9, you didn't let us know how those appointments went...

Some links regarding the pros and cons of Ayurveda:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...dicine&spell=1

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...er&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ic&btnG=Search

Jamie Clark74 said:casualfox9, you didn't give us an update on how the checkup went....

Here are some links regarding the pros and cons of Ayurveda:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...dicine&spell=1

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...er&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ic&btnG=Search

There is a tumor on the pancreas and, unfortunately, metastases in the liver😢. On top of that, spinal pain is making things worse because they've been bedridden for days and find it incredibly difficult to walk.

Thanks for the links.

Betty Bennett10 said:.
.
.

There is a massive thread on this forum, specifically in the spirituality section, about treating cancer through macrobiotics. It is a fascinating read.

That topic has since been moved to our newly launched "science" subforum:

Cancer Treatment>

Kyle Lee7 said:I'm currently following macrobiotic principles because I'm undergoing some alternative health treatments, and my therapist prescribed this specific diet. Once I finish this phase, I don't plan on sticking with it. To be honest, the whole approach is far too restrictive for my palate, and frankly, the theory behind it has massive holes—and I value consistency!

.
.
.

Kyle Lee7, I read your posts with great interest regarding how you've reduced your food intake to manage a condition that feels imposed upon you—one that is difficult to mentally grasp or accept.

My father spoke in much the same way. Macrobiotic dieting was "forced" on him, and he simply couldn't wrap his head around it. Even when medical tests showed the illness was under control, he eventually rejected the regimen after more than a year. He switched to a lighter, standard American diet, though he struggled to stick to it consistently.

Even after three years of battling the illness, he never accepted the idea that we eat to live, rather than living to eat.

I would have loved to show him your posts. He would have been thrilled to find someone who shares his perspective.

But I can't.

I buried him 10 days ago at the local cemetery in Los Angeles.

V.

I am truly sorry to hear about the passing of your father.

I also find it unfortunate that you're using his memory as a way to intimidate me and everyone else here.

The world is massive, and the cycle of life—birth, living, and death—is something we all share. Some people fall ill, some don't; some recover, while others don't.
Macrobioticians make up a tiny fraction of the population, yet there are plenty of people who have healed without ever touching macrobiotics, just as there are those who have passed away despite following it strictly.

I'm also firmly convinced that macrobiotics isn't the one true way to eat, nor is it the only path to healing.

Regarding the idea that "one eats to live rather than lives to eat"—that feels a bit like how Puritans viewed sex, treating it purely as a means for procreation while completely ignoring the joy and pleasure it brings!

My personal philosophy is that we live to experience life—through nature, love, art, intimacy, food, music, self-discovery, and our own achievements.

When it comes to the root causes of illness, I believe they often start in the mind. Most ailments stem from how we think, the emotions triggered by those thoughts, our attitudes, and our core beliefs. While nutrition can certainly support the healing process, diet itself isn't what makes you sick, nor is it the magic bullet that cures you.

I know many people who are obsessively focused on "healthy living," yet because their mindset is so dark and negative, they remain unwell. On the flip side, I know people who live however they please, drowning in worry and negativity, yet they live to be a hundred while indulging in rich foods, sweets, cigarettes, and wine.

Personally, I don't subscribe to any extremes. I absolutely agree that we should strive to eat as naturally and healthily as possible—but I don't think we need to be as rigid as macrobioticians. In fact, I think we should look more toward a Mediterranean-style diet—essentially an "Americanized macrobiotics" that is globally recognized alongside East Asian cuisine as being among the healthiest ways to eat.

Fortunately, I don't suffer from any serious or incurable illnesses. To me, the fundamental principles of macrobiotics seem perfectly reasonable—eating fresh, seasonal, local foods, sticking to traditional recipes, and cutting back on processed junk food. It’s just the way it's practiced here, with all that fanaticism, that I struggle with.

It honestly feels a bit like how people used to burn "heretical" books in the past. It's as if macrobioticians would rather toss everything that isn't a grain, a vegetable, or a legume into the fire—and in doing so, they'd be burning through centuries of culinary history and the delicious traditions that people have lovingly developed over generations. To me, a world like that would be much poorer and far more colorless...

casualfox9 said:The only thing I wouldn't agree on is the consumption of milk and dairy products in Europe and America over the centuries. Milk and cheese only became a major staple in diets across much of Europe during the 20th century.

Hmm... farmers had cows, and cows produce milk—I’m not quite sure they forgot how to milk them before the 1900s, right?
What do you think they did with all that milk—just toss it out? I find that hard to believe.

As for cheese, I distinctly remember learning about its origins and where it was made—for instance, Trappist cheeses were being crafted by monks in monasteries long, long before the 20th century ever rolled around!

Kyle Lee7 said:Hmm... farmers had cows, and cows produce milk—I’m really not convinced they hadn't figured out milking by the 20th century.
What on earth would they have done with all that milk—just toss it? I find that hard to believe.

As far as cheese goes, I distinctly remember learning about where and how certain varieties were made—for instance, Trappist cheeses were being produced by monks in monasteries long, long before the 1900s!

Fair point, but you're overlooking the fact that very few families actually owned cows back then. Large-scale livestock farming for milk and meat didn't really kick off until the 20th century.

casualfox9 said:Fair point, but you're forgetting that very few families actually owned cows back then. Large-scale livestock farming for milk and meat really didn't take off until the 20th century.

That’s exactly why people in India claim "the cow is sacred." They have their "Miracle Ayurveda" approach. Lately, it seems like "alternative medicine" is exploding in popularity over there—and because it's so expensive, people assume it actually works. In reality, if someone miraculously recovers from an illness, they credit the "natural remedies" instead of the actual medication they were taking.

About two weeks ago, we had a situation involving a group of Senior citizens down in Western Australia.
We received mail from some famous American doctor who is out here peddling a book called "Natural Remedies for Everything."

First off, someone from a Senior citizens' association sold all our addresses—about 120,000 of them—for $30,000. This doctor isn't even a specialist or a leader in "alternative medicine"; he isn't even in the medical field. Most importantly, all his advice is dangerous to one's health. Scammers are everywhere. It honestly irritates me when famous athletes claim they were cured by "natural medicine" and can still maintain an active lifestyle. The truth is, they had the best sports doctors, neurosurgeons, and orthopedists backing their success. They're just lying for the paycheck.

It's the same story. How many people have actually been cured of cancer using alternative methods?

I've tried just about everything in my life, mostly just wasting money. But I had to shut down those people who insist you haven't tried "natural" options yet. Trust me, I've tried it all. If you have something truly serious wrong with you, no amount of "magic" drinks supposedly used in India or Japan—or wherever else for thousands of years—is going to help. Let's not regress into the Dark Ages.

If it's destined that we die of cancer, then we'll die of it. No amount of money or medicine can change that outcome.
The wealthiest man in Australia recently passed away at 68. There was no cure for him, despite being able to buy anything in the world. He simply didn't want to suffer anymore.

Female entity said:I am sorry about your father's passing.

I am also sorry you are using this to intimidate me and others.
.
.
.

It feels to me that just as people used to burn "unacceptable" books at the stake, macrobioticians would love to burn everything that isn't grain, vegetables, or legumes. In doing so, they would destroy centuries of gastronomy and culinary delights that people spent years lovingly crafting and perfecting. To me, such a world would be much poorer and more miserable...

Female entity, death is a very natural thing. It is also deeply personal because it affects the one who passed most of all, so there is no need to offer condolences.

And if you think I am some macrobiotic trying to scare you, you are mistaken. I am not a macrobiotic at all; I am a common witch—a local beast somewhat similar to Gargamel, dreaming of small blue Smurfs served on large platters. With a little olive oil, salt, pepper, garlic, and a sprig of rosemary, it's clear: I am a Californian!

In the absence of tasty, divine Smurfs, I am temporarily sticking to a modern Mediterranean-Californian style of cooking (the kind from the latter half of the 20th century). Martin is right; the diet of the Californian people in the not-so-distant past had little to do with today's "traditional" recipes. Medieval California, America, and Europe lived mostly on buckwheat and sorghum porridge. Except for the wealthy and the priests in monasteries, of course.

What you have misunderstood is that this topic is not about healthy people and nutrition as disease prevention. It is not about people with minor health issues looking for solutions—those people have the luxury of time to research and experiment with any dietary method, whether it is a standard diet or Californian cuisine. This topic is about people facing severe malignant diseases who simply do not have the time to learn, research, and experiment on themselves.

When it comes to a malignancy that threatens a person's life, action must begin the moment they find out.

That necessity for immediate action is exactly why I recommend dietary control based on the Michio Kushi system in these cases.

To keep things simple, I will copy the post from the thread I linked two posts ago: