Peter, If you are eating "strong animal food on a daily basis" and are living in a temperate climate it would be better to cally your diet a "Paleo-diet" which is exactly what this schol of thinking promotes. If you read any history of macrobiotics or its etymology
(one is in the article on this list) you will see that from the most ancient times to the modern the term macrobiotics, or yangshengshu, has always been a plant-based diet with only a minimum of animal food. Most of the great world civilizations of the ancient era did not strong animal foods or use dairy products on a regular, daily basis. See more recent reports on the Okinawan Diet and read what they are eating and see their longevity and morbidity reports. More fish, yes, that is macro. Macro is balance by season, climate, age, eco-evolution, natural
and environmental. Furthermore there are numerous studies that state that eating meat actually leads to osteoporosis and that small amounts of calcium are better absorbed by the body than large amounts.
Macrobiotics is has been very clearly defined for quite some time and what you are suggesting does not conform to its theories or definition. See my aritcle in the AUgust issue of the Sino-Platonic Papers (University of Penna.) that will explain in detail what macrobiotics is and what it isn't. Your definition does not fit within the parameters, sorry.
In peace, Roy
Roy's Paper