![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
What do people think of the South Beach diet? 164.116.126.126
This description of the South Beach Diet is rather vague and attempts to get the specifics of what consist of this diet have proven to be brickwalled by attempts to "hide" the information as somehow "propietary." Food cannot be patented and the information about what foods are in which diet cannot either. Therefore, I recommend that someone who either knows what is in each specific phase and can do a good enough job of using their own language to describe it or who has actually used the diet expand the article. -- 128.193.161.139 18:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, we need more information. I'm trying to do a report on this diet for school, and its really hard because there is so little info on here. How about a list of pros and cons? Maybe some example meals? Possible effects on your health from using the diet, either good or bad, that sort of thing. -- 209.137.185.66 15:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This article seems to speak with a pro- point of view. I'm asking for someone who may be more informed to review, expand, and reference as necessary. / Blaxthos 05:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I know there are a lot of doctors and other professionals here who have studied this diet and diets like it in great detail. Let's get someone to give this article the treatment it deserves. -- Ericpaulson 15:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I came to Wikipedia hoping for an answer to the biggest mystery of this diet: What's the science behind losing 7-13 pounds in Phase One? After a;;. almost all reliable sources concur that to lose a pound of fat, there must be a 3,600-calorie deficit, either through less eating or increased exercise. Two weeks of Phase One would at most represent a 14,000-calorie deficit for most people (I am generously assuming about 1,000 fewer calories per day than previously). So what makes up the difference? Agatston very clearly ignores this question in his book. Is it simply dehydration, in which case he's being pretty deceptive? Hopefully an unbiased expert or two can clarify! 24.148.11.26 17:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I did SB a while back - IIRC, we actually worked out the calories in a typical Phase 1 day to be around 1100. FleetfootMike 09:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't be dehydration - you're encouraged to drink a great deal of water, including on phase one. When I did phase one, though, I lost at least seven pounds (I hadn't weighed myself before I started, just after one week of phase one).
In general, having read the book, I would say that the information in this article represents pretty well what I read. I agree, however, that it would be a good think to also present the commentary made against the diet; I did some very early editing on this article where I just tried to make sure it wasn't lumped in with Atkins as a "low-carb diet", since while you end up lower than normal, it's not a diet about ketosis (it's explicitly mentioned as as something to avoid). Krilia 18:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This section and the next one address the same issue. Is it dehydration? Yes, a lot of the weight loss is water in Phase I. Dr. Agatston freely admits that, although it's not mentioned in the book. The focus of the diet was supposed to be health, not weight, and the purpose of phase I is supposed to be to break the cycle of rapid changes in blood sugar. Unfortunately, the main article does not describe this very well, and neither did the original book. Agatston subsequently clarified the stages and said that the appropriate starting phase is based on the individual's needs, and there's no reason to start at phase I unless indicated. The bottom line is that Phase I will cause people who follow it to lose weight, and a large part of that will be water. It may accomplish its goal of stabilizing blood sugar levels, and it may have a psychological affect that encourages dieters to continue, but how much of the weight loss is from fat is not a relevant factor with respect to those specific issues. Hagrinas ( talk) 17:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is dehydration, although it does not affect your health. Read on. In first days of diet you loose almost all of your glycogen. Each 1 g of glycogen binds 2 g of water. Hence when glycogen is converted into glucose, the water is not stored anymore (it is simply not needed). No matter how much water you consume, you will loose about 1-3 kg of glycogen+water. Only after loosing most of glycogen you will start to burn your fat at full speed. -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 21:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
In his book "Fit or Fat", Covert Bailey describes the metabolic processes that happens in a high protein, low carbohydrate diet. In a nutshell, it forces your tissues to get rid of water.
The first phase of the South Beach diet is a high protein, low carbohydrate diet. You are NOT losing fat in the first phase of this diet, you are losing water! This is precisely why you are encouraged to drink lots of water. You may be loosing mass, but you're not loosing fat. What is being accomplished is psychological reinforcement that this diet works and the doctor who made it knows what he's talking about. By continuing on the diet, you are gently encouraged to adopt more healthy eating patterns and to exercise, all the while remembering "wow, I lost 15 pounds in the first two weeks!"
My advice for the not so weak willed, skip Phase I and go directly to Phase II. The whole "eliminating insulin resistance" thing, in my opinion, is techno speak designed to baffle the reader into further believing the author knows what he is talking about. Else, why wouldn't he have just explained the metabolic processes like the Covert Bailey did?
Eat right, eat less, exercise more and you will become thin and healthy.
Frontier teg 04:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
But tomatoes are forbidden?--
82.59.45.18
16:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Tomatoes are fine, POtatoes are not.
Tomatoes have significant carbs (sugars) so they aren't free, but are an excellent source of many nutrients, not with standing the anti oxidant factor that is priceless.
I'm a Biology major and I've always been interested in fitness. All this skepticism over this diet is a bit ridiculous. The explanation given for the diet isn't the point. Your body burns carbs before it burns fat, if you have a high carb diet with excessive amounts of processed foods and happen to have a genetic disposition for a slower metabolism, you will become fat because your body sees no reason to break down fat stores.
During Phase I, it's true that some of the weight lost will be water, but some will also be fat. Lean meats and vegetables contain more fiber and protein than refined carb foods and are much less likely to store as fat reserves because of this fiber and reduced carb content. With exercise, they will also nourish the muscles you are using during any workout regime you combine it with. Muscle tissue burns more calories than any other type of tissue in your body. Which is why working out is important. (BTW: Weight is a terrible measure of fitness because weight is muscle in addition to fat. Muscle is much heavier than fat. For a better understanding use the body-mass index a.k.a. BMI test, which is not perfect but more accurate than judging by weight alone.)
The idea behind Phase II is that you cannot maintain a diet like Phase I forever. You need to integrate whole grains back into your life or you'll be miserable. And maybe an occassional processed food, like a cookie or 2. The SBD is to help you get back on track with what humans are naturally MEANT to eat. You evolved to survive, not to binge on high fat, processed food. And you need to exercise, it's not exactly an option. Diet without exercise only works for those blessed with "thin" genetics.
You shouldn't be so skeptical of science just because you don't understand the terms. If you want to understand them go into a science profession or buy a different book. Or ask someone who has studied it.
-- BMI doesn't distinguish between muscle and fat either. It's better than weight alone because it takes height into account too. But nothing else. --md
The article lists dairy as a 'no-no' in Phase 1:
Dairy: Avoid all dairy in Phase 1, including: yogurt (cup-style and frozen), ice cream, milk (low-fat, fat-free, whole), milk (soy)
despite dairy products being listed as expressly authorized:
Cheese (fat-free or low fat): American, cheddar, cottage cheese (1–2% or fat-free), cream cheese substitute (dairy free), feta, mozzarella, Parmesan, provolone, ricotta, string
...
Dairy: Milk (lowfat or nonfat), Yogurt (lowfat or nonfat PLAIN), unsweetened or sucralose sweetened soy milk.
This is an obvious oversight that should be corrected.
Dforest ( talk) 21:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I corrected the dairy misinformation. --JB
It seems like the Zone section in particular needs some work as far as POV goes. Also, the statement that the Zone diet is different because it emphasizes good fats and carbs over bad seems to contradict the beginning of the article which states the same thing about the South Beach diet. Why is the Zone diet in particular being compared to this one in the first place? There are tons of diets out there that would be possible to compare to. If we're not going to compare to every one (or at least every major one), would it be best to leave that out altogether? 18.251.5.131 ( talk) 06:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the Zone diet comparison is needed, but the current details listed are simply incorrect. The Zone diet is in fact based upon choosing "good" carbohydrates and "good" fats over the bad, based upon extensive biochemical, animal, and epidemiological research. So this in no way can be considered a "difference" between the two diets. In a lot of ways the South Beach diet seems like a "spin-off" of the Zone. The Zone is more precise with regards to the ratios between carbohydrates and fats, and the amounts one should have per meal based on lean body mass and exercise levels. The food choices, however, are nearly identical. The Zone is in fact more restrictive with regards to carbohydrates -- "whole grains" must be eaten in such small amounts to fit the ratios that it is better advised to replace them completely with large portions fruits and vegetables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.200.121 ( talk) 19:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
IS IT POSSIBLE TO USE THIS DIET SIMILAR TO JENNY CRAIG BY BUYING THE PREPARED FOODS AND FOLLOWING THE ON-LINE DIET PLAN? IF SO, WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO GET STARTED, SIGNING UP FOR THE ONLINE DIET? tlc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.88.37 ( talk) 03:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
No--there are very few foods made by Kraft for South Beach at the moment--you surely could not live on the small number of choices available. You must be able to do basic cooking on your own. It's nothing to steam some broccoli or what have you.
Come on, this article didn't fool me. Wikipedia's got a NPOV, so let's get the criticism going in. There may not be that much unlike Atkins, but at least the controversy with Budweiser should be included here. -- Jw21/Penalty Killah CANUCKLEHEAD? 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This entire article is written like a manual.
NPOV attached.
Missing areas:
And shorten the "Phases" sections. It's an encyclopedic article, not a "How To" manual. 98.203.251.157 ( talk) 01:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This line: "Although foods rich in these "bad fats" do not contribute to the hunger cycle, they do contribute to LDL cholesterol and heart disease." bothers me. Is it intended as a representation of the views of the authors of the SB Diet? In which case could that be made clear, with citations of their literature?
If it is just the article author's addition, well it still needs citations, but more than that I would imagine the first point (raising of LDL) is not disputed, but nowadays the link between saturated fat and heart disease is disputed (and indeed the total level of LDL is considered by some to be irrelevant).
In fact the whole bit about "being a cardiologist, it's no surprise he limits....fat" is a bit out of place, it assumes all cardiologists would do so and reads like an endorsement of that view rather than a dispassionate description.
Anyway, point is I think this needs tidying up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.100.7 ( talk) 20:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
Hello to those who may have this page watchlisted or have come across this message. I have been working on behalf of the editorial department at the South Beach Diet brand for the last several months, researching the diet to create a thorough and balanced replacement for this article. As I have a financial COI here, I will not be making any direct edits to the article myself.
The current version of the article suffers from poor organization, with a jumbled patchwork of sections. I've tried to correct this through rearranging topics and using more general section headings. The article also lacks important information about the diet's development and early years, while providing excessive background information about the work on David J. Jenkins. There also have been no updates from the last several years. As an example, the Bibliography section should list several more publications than it does currently.
This new draft can be viewed in my userspace here:
I've written what I believe is a more comprehensive history of the diet and its development, as well as an overview of its principles. In addition, I'm proposing a new section for separate information about the diet as a business, which contains details about the South Beach Diet brand and its products.
It should also be noted that I've addressed its reception and studies concurrently, as a replacement for the existing Criticism and Scientific studies sections, as Wikipedia tends to discourage the use of sections focused on negative information in order to retain a neutral point of view. I tried to balance opinions and findings when grouping this information; I only removed one item that appears in the current article—"Anheuser-Busch produced a press release disputing Agatston's claim that beer has a high glycemic index due to its maltose content." Not only was the referenced source the press release itself, a single decade-old press release did not seem important to note. If other editors feel differently, however, I'm open to discussing the matter.
Because I have prepared this draft on behalf of South Beach Diet, I am looking for editors to help me review this draft and to offer any suggestions for improvement. If it seems that this new draft is better than the version in place now, I'd ask that another editor take it live, replacing the current article. As stated, I won't be making any edits here myself, so I appreciate other editors taking the time to review. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 14:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and made some brave edits of the page, which may or may not please the talkers here. I put all studies together, added some critical studies and moved the ones in the criticism section to the studies section. Someone needs to find some neutral positive scientific studies, because the two listed there are by the author and a company profiting from the product. I believe that there are numerous studies that show that SBD has positive effects for some patients. I also fixed what I thought was some overly casual wording in the body of the article. LaMona ( talk) 20:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Following a discussion with LaMona above, I have mocked up outlines of what would potentially be included in two separate articles splitting up the diet and brand. I agree that there should only be one page for the diet itself. While there have been some updates in recent books—an exercise program was introduced in The South Beach Diet Supercharged, and the latest book is about a three-phase program to test gluten-sensitivity—they all very much follow the same principles and fall under the South Beach Diet umbrella. In my proposed draft, I labeled them as updates of the original three-phase diet.
New outlines:
I think there would be some cross-over in the first section of each article. The History and development section of the diet's article would discuss the books, though perhaps more briefly than what I originally proposed, and the brand's article would have to repeat some information about how the diet was established. What do others think? WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 19:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hi again, LaMona—after some thought this weekend, I believe working through this article one section at a time will be the easiest way to move forward, focusing on this article as the (diet) article and considering (brand) separately. If that sound good, I'd like to suggest concentrating on the History section first and revisiting the Studies and Difference from other "low-carb" diets later on.
Your reworking of the language in the current History and theory section definitely improved readability, though I still think more needs to be done regarding the content and sourcing problems. Mainly, the current section includes quite a bit of tangential background information, not to mention it is sourced almost entirely to the South Beach Diet book (plus another study supporting a statement unrelated to the history of the diet). Because of these issues, I think a rewrite of the section would be best.
As I mentioned Friday, I reviewed the language I'd previously prepared for History and theory and removed any details that centered around the South Beach Diet as a brand. One caveat: the current section is of course called History and theory although I think anything "theory" would best be discussed under the section now called The diet, and my suggested version is simply called History. Topics such as the glycemic index would be better addressed there, while this section I believe should focus on chronology. We can address that material in that section next. I'd appreciate if you could review that language below and let me know your thoughts:
The South Beach Diet was developed in the mid- 1990s by preventive cardiologist Dr. Arthur Agatston with the assistance of Marie Almon, the former chief dietitian at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach, Florida. [1] [2] [3] Originally called the Modified Carbohydrate Diet, the plan was renamed the South Beach Diet after the South Beach neighborhood in Miami Beach near Agatston's practice. [1] [4]
The diet plan was initially developed for Agatston's own patients to reduce their risk of heart attacks and strokes. Agatston noticed that the American Heart Association's then-recommended low-fat and high-carbohydrate diet was not lowering his patients' weight, cholesterol or blood sugar levels, but that his patients on the Atkins diet were experiencing weight loss. Unwilling to prescribe the Atkins approach to patients with cardiac issues due to the diet's allowance of saturated fat and limitation of carbohydrates containing fiber and other nutrients, Agatston referenced medical research to build an eating plan that categorized fats and carbohydrates as good or bad and emphasized lean protein and fiber. [2] [1] [5] Agatston's patients successfully lost weight on the plan and experienced improved health. [2] [5]
The plan grew in popularity as a method of weight loss as Agatston reported the results at conferences and patients distributed photocopies outlining the diet throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s. The diet also attracted attention when a South Florida TV station reported on the diet three years in a row and partnered with local grocery stores to encourage residents to try the plan. [2] [5] [3]
The first book describing the diet, The South Beach Diet, was written by Agatston and was released in April 2003. [1] [6] [7] In 2004, Bill Clinton revealed that he had lost 35 pounds by following the South Beach Diet. [8] [9] [10] He became one of several celebrities to publicly state they were on the South Beach Diet, including Nicole Kidman and Bette Midler. [11] [3]
In 2008, Agatston published The South Beach Diet Supercharged, an expanded version of the original diet plan, written with Joseph Signorile, a University of Miami professor of exercise physiology. The book's new material was based on new medical research and includes an interval training program. [12] [13]The South Beach Wake-Up Call, a book outlining the South Beach Diet and the issues with unhealthy lifestyle choices common among Americans, was released in 2011. [14] [15] [16] In 2013, The South Beach Diet Gluten Solution was published. The book was written by Agatston with pediatrician Dr. Natalie Geary and focuses on helping readers understand gluten sensitivity and how it may affect them, along with a three-phase program to test their own sensitivity to gluten. [17] [18] [19]References
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
As you review, you'll see I've kept the main ideas that are currently in the section, including Agatston's views on low-fat diets and the Atkins diet, but I've summarized them into one paragraph and made sure all statements are supported by independent, third-party sources. I removed the mention of David J. Jenkins' work entirely, because it focused on the development of the glycemic index, rather than development of the South Beach Diet.
I've also expanded the section to touch on other information not currently covered, including: who developed the diet; when and where it was developed; why it was developed; and how it came to prominence. Some of the books about the diet are mentioned here—I chose the ones that present significant updates to the original plan—but I did not go into too much detail, assuming they will be covered more thoroughly in a subsequent brand article.
Happy to discuss specific additions or exclusions made in this draft with you or any other editors that might come across this message. If its agreed that this is an improvement upon what is currently in the History section, I'd like to request that this be moved over to the the live article. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 20:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Last week I posted a request on this page seeking to replace the current article with a new one; that was met with some skepticism, and opposition to such a major overhaul without a careful consideration of the merits. That's fine, so I'd like to take a step back and start over with a small request that I think should be easier to find consensus on. That is, the article is currently missing an infobox, a standard element of many company articles. I have prepared one, the markup for which is in the collapsed box below.
{{infobox brand
| name = South Beach Diet
| logo =
| image =
| caption =
| type = Diet plan, books, food line
| currentowner = SBD Holdings Group Corp.
| origin = [[United States]]
| introduced = 1990s
| discontinued =
| related =
| markets =
| previousowners =
| trademarkregistrations = South Beach Diet, South Beach Diet Delivery, South Beach Diet Gluten Solution
| ambassadors =
| tagline =
| website ={{URL|southbeachdiet.com}}
I will also be making a fair use case for the inclusion of a company logo to be placed inside it soon; I have no particular opinion about the inclusion of other parameters, so if an editor is willing to implement this, they can either leave them in or remove them. Thanks, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 19:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
This infobox is for a brand. This particular article is primarily about the diet (History and theory, The diet, Scientific studies, Confusion with "low-carb" diets, Criticism) with limited discussion of the associated brand (South Beach Living packaged foods). This infobox is probably more appropriate for South Beach Living. - SummerPhD ( talk) 04:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought I should explain more clearly what I see as the differences between what could be two articles about SBD.
Diet as science - While popular diets have become often seen as fads, (and some of them are not scientifically based), diets developed for health are part of preventive medicine, with a medical basis. Therefore, an article about a health-related diet should have the same tone and content as an article about, say, information about the relationship between cholesterol and health, and medicines used for this medical condition. The origins of the SBD, before it became a big money-maker, mainly around the books, is based on science. Therefore, it is important to separate the science from the "fad" or "popularity" aspects. Once moved beyond the medical control, there is virtually no way to estimate or claim medical value, as no health checking is being done on users of the diet. By that I mean that people on the diet are not getting blood tests or other tests to see if the diet achieves its medical goals (or even if there are medical goals). In fact, *if* there were information about its continued use under medical supervision (e.g. statistics on how many doctors or dieticians are putting patients on this diet; follow-up studies about the health changes, etc.) then that should be reported here. There are sites that advise that one should not attempt the diet without medical supervision, but clearly the fact of the brand having been distributed as NYTimes best-sellers most likely means that many people are indeed following it (or beginning to, since we know that diets are often abandoned) without that supervision.
Diet as brand - Unlike other preventive medicines like statins or even aspirin, diets are not necessarily under the control of a person's medical advisor. In this sense, diets become popular and/or faddish without any medical treatment being involved. (Note: the same could be said of many exercise regimes.) Thus, diets move from the scientific, medical area and can become 'brands' with no involvement of medical personnel. In this phase, diets may lose their scientific rationale and become followed for esthetic reasons (weight loss, primarily) rather than medical reasons. This is where SBD as a popular diet brand belongs; this is where the best-selling books should be emphasized, the treatment of SBD in the popular press. It should not be treated as equal to or the same as the medical use of the diet, and no medical claims should be made regarding this usage of the diet described in the books. In other words, one should not imply that non-medical use of the diet has any medical value, and therefore the brand should focus on the sociology of the popularity of the diet.
It is for these reasons that I feel that the two topics should be treated separately: SBD as medical treatment vs. SBD as non-medically controlled popular weight-loss promise. LaMona ( talk) 18:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
LaMona, here is my reply to your comment in the following thread, asking about Axess magazine. Axess is a publication of Celebrity Cruises—like an in-flight magazine, but for cruise ships. While it does not have a full website of its own, it has an associated blog called Catalyst, and Axess itself has a profile page there; I was working from the print version. Knowing that you considered a New York Times article in my draft a "puff piece" I am quite certain you will dislike this source. However, it is an interview with Dr. Agatston used to support non-medical details about the diet's early history. In addition, please note that it is never used standalone any of the four times it appears. I simply have used it to reinforce other sources, and I'm prepared to explain each instance in detail if need be. While its inclusion may not be strictly necessary, I do believe the source is appropriate for its intended purpose. Best, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 15:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
An important preface: I have previously suggested major changes to this article, also making clear that I am doing so while working on a consulting basis for South Beach Diet. My operating premise is that the current article is outdated, inaccurate, poorly written, and largely unsupported by reliable sources.
However, the drafts I presented were viewed quite skeptically, so in this message I will focus on just one section, and explain why I think the current History and theory section is so problematic. I've avoided suggesting any specific solutions or new text here, aiming first to find agreement that something should be done. Here's what I see:
To editors who have previously been involved in this discussion, and anyone else who may be coming to it new, I would be interested to hear what you think about the best way to address these issues. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 21:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Since I was the editor in question ... I am mostly interested in having the health-related aspects of this diet presented in line with our WP:PAGs and trimming anything obiously NPOV. The "fad" word is I think fair in view of the tone of the Harvard Health Letter piece, and "diet fads" is one of the Medical Subject Headings used by PUBMED for that article. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI
The version current as of today (Nov 2 2014) has been edited by folks with medical knowledge User:Doc_James and User:Alexbrn. Just so you know that the sources that exist in this version are considered medically sound. LaMona ( talk) 00:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
What do people think of the South Beach diet? 164.116.126.126
This description of the South Beach Diet is rather vague and attempts to get the specifics of what consist of this diet have proven to be brickwalled by attempts to "hide" the information as somehow "propietary." Food cannot be patented and the information about what foods are in which diet cannot either. Therefore, I recommend that someone who either knows what is in each specific phase and can do a good enough job of using their own language to describe it or who has actually used the diet expand the article. -- 128.193.161.139 18:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, we need more information. I'm trying to do a report on this diet for school, and its really hard because there is so little info on here. How about a list of pros and cons? Maybe some example meals? Possible effects on your health from using the diet, either good or bad, that sort of thing. -- 209.137.185.66 15:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This article seems to speak with a pro- point of view. I'm asking for someone who may be more informed to review, expand, and reference as necessary. / Blaxthos 05:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I know there are a lot of doctors and other professionals here who have studied this diet and diets like it in great detail. Let's get someone to give this article the treatment it deserves. -- Ericpaulson 15:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I came to Wikipedia hoping for an answer to the biggest mystery of this diet: What's the science behind losing 7-13 pounds in Phase One? After a;;. almost all reliable sources concur that to lose a pound of fat, there must be a 3,600-calorie deficit, either through less eating or increased exercise. Two weeks of Phase One would at most represent a 14,000-calorie deficit for most people (I am generously assuming about 1,000 fewer calories per day than previously). So what makes up the difference? Agatston very clearly ignores this question in his book. Is it simply dehydration, in which case he's being pretty deceptive? Hopefully an unbiased expert or two can clarify! 24.148.11.26 17:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I did SB a while back - IIRC, we actually worked out the calories in a typical Phase 1 day to be around 1100. FleetfootMike 09:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't be dehydration - you're encouraged to drink a great deal of water, including on phase one. When I did phase one, though, I lost at least seven pounds (I hadn't weighed myself before I started, just after one week of phase one).
In general, having read the book, I would say that the information in this article represents pretty well what I read. I agree, however, that it would be a good think to also present the commentary made against the diet; I did some very early editing on this article where I just tried to make sure it wasn't lumped in with Atkins as a "low-carb diet", since while you end up lower than normal, it's not a diet about ketosis (it's explicitly mentioned as as something to avoid). Krilia 18:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This section and the next one address the same issue. Is it dehydration? Yes, a lot of the weight loss is water in Phase I. Dr. Agatston freely admits that, although it's not mentioned in the book. The focus of the diet was supposed to be health, not weight, and the purpose of phase I is supposed to be to break the cycle of rapid changes in blood sugar. Unfortunately, the main article does not describe this very well, and neither did the original book. Agatston subsequently clarified the stages and said that the appropriate starting phase is based on the individual's needs, and there's no reason to start at phase I unless indicated. The bottom line is that Phase I will cause people who follow it to lose weight, and a large part of that will be water. It may accomplish its goal of stabilizing blood sugar levels, and it may have a psychological affect that encourages dieters to continue, but how much of the weight loss is from fat is not a relevant factor with respect to those specific issues. Hagrinas ( talk) 17:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is dehydration, although it does not affect your health. Read on. In first days of diet you loose almost all of your glycogen. Each 1 g of glycogen binds 2 g of water. Hence when glycogen is converted into glucose, the water is not stored anymore (it is simply not needed). No matter how much water you consume, you will loose about 1-3 kg of glycogen+water. Only after loosing most of glycogen you will start to burn your fat at full speed. -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 21:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
In his book "Fit or Fat", Covert Bailey describes the metabolic processes that happens in a high protein, low carbohydrate diet. In a nutshell, it forces your tissues to get rid of water.
The first phase of the South Beach diet is a high protein, low carbohydrate diet. You are NOT losing fat in the first phase of this diet, you are losing water! This is precisely why you are encouraged to drink lots of water. You may be loosing mass, but you're not loosing fat. What is being accomplished is psychological reinforcement that this diet works and the doctor who made it knows what he's talking about. By continuing on the diet, you are gently encouraged to adopt more healthy eating patterns and to exercise, all the while remembering "wow, I lost 15 pounds in the first two weeks!"
My advice for the not so weak willed, skip Phase I and go directly to Phase II. The whole "eliminating insulin resistance" thing, in my opinion, is techno speak designed to baffle the reader into further believing the author knows what he is talking about. Else, why wouldn't he have just explained the metabolic processes like the Covert Bailey did?
Eat right, eat less, exercise more and you will become thin and healthy.
Frontier teg 04:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
But tomatoes are forbidden?--
82.59.45.18
16:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Tomatoes are fine, POtatoes are not.
Tomatoes have significant carbs (sugars) so they aren't free, but are an excellent source of many nutrients, not with standing the anti oxidant factor that is priceless.
I'm a Biology major and I've always been interested in fitness. All this skepticism over this diet is a bit ridiculous. The explanation given for the diet isn't the point. Your body burns carbs before it burns fat, if you have a high carb diet with excessive amounts of processed foods and happen to have a genetic disposition for a slower metabolism, you will become fat because your body sees no reason to break down fat stores.
During Phase I, it's true that some of the weight lost will be water, but some will also be fat. Lean meats and vegetables contain more fiber and protein than refined carb foods and are much less likely to store as fat reserves because of this fiber and reduced carb content. With exercise, they will also nourish the muscles you are using during any workout regime you combine it with. Muscle tissue burns more calories than any other type of tissue in your body. Which is why working out is important. (BTW: Weight is a terrible measure of fitness because weight is muscle in addition to fat. Muscle is much heavier than fat. For a better understanding use the body-mass index a.k.a. BMI test, which is not perfect but more accurate than judging by weight alone.)
The idea behind Phase II is that you cannot maintain a diet like Phase I forever. You need to integrate whole grains back into your life or you'll be miserable. And maybe an occassional processed food, like a cookie or 2. The SBD is to help you get back on track with what humans are naturally MEANT to eat. You evolved to survive, not to binge on high fat, processed food. And you need to exercise, it's not exactly an option. Diet without exercise only works for those blessed with "thin" genetics.
You shouldn't be so skeptical of science just because you don't understand the terms. If you want to understand them go into a science profession or buy a different book. Or ask someone who has studied it.
-- BMI doesn't distinguish between muscle and fat either. It's better than weight alone because it takes height into account too. But nothing else. --md
The article lists dairy as a 'no-no' in Phase 1:
Dairy: Avoid all dairy in Phase 1, including: yogurt (cup-style and frozen), ice cream, milk (low-fat, fat-free, whole), milk (soy)
despite dairy products being listed as expressly authorized:
Cheese (fat-free or low fat): American, cheddar, cottage cheese (1–2% or fat-free), cream cheese substitute (dairy free), feta, mozzarella, Parmesan, provolone, ricotta, string
...
Dairy: Milk (lowfat or nonfat), Yogurt (lowfat or nonfat PLAIN), unsweetened or sucralose sweetened soy milk.
This is an obvious oversight that should be corrected.
Dforest ( talk) 21:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I corrected the dairy misinformation. --JB
It seems like the Zone section in particular needs some work as far as POV goes. Also, the statement that the Zone diet is different because it emphasizes good fats and carbs over bad seems to contradict the beginning of the article which states the same thing about the South Beach diet. Why is the Zone diet in particular being compared to this one in the first place? There are tons of diets out there that would be possible to compare to. If we're not going to compare to every one (or at least every major one), would it be best to leave that out altogether? 18.251.5.131 ( talk) 06:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the Zone diet comparison is needed, but the current details listed are simply incorrect. The Zone diet is in fact based upon choosing "good" carbohydrates and "good" fats over the bad, based upon extensive biochemical, animal, and epidemiological research. So this in no way can be considered a "difference" between the two diets. In a lot of ways the South Beach diet seems like a "spin-off" of the Zone. The Zone is more precise with regards to the ratios between carbohydrates and fats, and the amounts one should have per meal based on lean body mass and exercise levels. The food choices, however, are nearly identical. The Zone is in fact more restrictive with regards to carbohydrates -- "whole grains" must be eaten in such small amounts to fit the ratios that it is better advised to replace them completely with large portions fruits and vegetables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.200.121 ( talk) 19:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
IS IT POSSIBLE TO USE THIS DIET SIMILAR TO JENNY CRAIG BY BUYING THE PREPARED FOODS AND FOLLOWING THE ON-LINE DIET PLAN? IF SO, WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO GET STARTED, SIGNING UP FOR THE ONLINE DIET? tlc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.88.37 ( talk) 03:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
No--there are very few foods made by Kraft for South Beach at the moment--you surely could not live on the small number of choices available. You must be able to do basic cooking on your own. It's nothing to steam some broccoli or what have you.
Come on, this article didn't fool me. Wikipedia's got a NPOV, so let's get the criticism going in. There may not be that much unlike Atkins, but at least the controversy with Budweiser should be included here. -- Jw21/Penalty Killah CANUCKLEHEAD? 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This entire article is written like a manual.
NPOV attached.
Missing areas:
And shorten the "Phases" sections. It's an encyclopedic article, not a "How To" manual. 98.203.251.157 ( talk) 01:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This line: "Although foods rich in these "bad fats" do not contribute to the hunger cycle, they do contribute to LDL cholesterol and heart disease." bothers me. Is it intended as a representation of the views of the authors of the SB Diet? In which case could that be made clear, with citations of their literature?
If it is just the article author's addition, well it still needs citations, but more than that I would imagine the first point (raising of LDL) is not disputed, but nowadays the link between saturated fat and heart disease is disputed (and indeed the total level of LDL is considered by some to be irrelevant).
In fact the whole bit about "being a cardiologist, it's no surprise he limits....fat" is a bit out of place, it assumes all cardiologists would do so and reads like an endorsement of that view rather than a dispassionate description.
Anyway, point is I think this needs tidying up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.100.7 ( talk) 20:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
Hello to those who may have this page watchlisted or have come across this message. I have been working on behalf of the editorial department at the South Beach Diet brand for the last several months, researching the diet to create a thorough and balanced replacement for this article. As I have a financial COI here, I will not be making any direct edits to the article myself.
The current version of the article suffers from poor organization, with a jumbled patchwork of sections. I've tried to correct this through rearranging topics and using more general section headings. The article also lacks important information about the diet's development and early years, while providing excessive background information about the work on David J. Jenkins. There also have been no updates from the last several years. As an example, the Bibliography section should list several more publications than it does currently.
This new draft can be viewed in my userspace here:
I've written what I believe is a more comprehensive history of the diet and its development, as well as an overview of its principles. In addition, I'm proposing a new section for separate information about the diet as a business, which contains details about the South Beach Diet brand and its products.
It should also be noted that I've addressed its reception and studies concurrently, as a replacement for the existing Criticism and Scientific studies sections, as Wikipedia tends to discourage the use of sections focused on negative information in order to retain a neutral point of view. I tried to balance opinions and findings when grouping this information; I only removed one item that appears in the current article—"Anheuser-Busch produced a press release disputing Agatston's claim that beer has a high glycemic index due to its maltose content." Not only was the referenced source the press release itself, a single decade-old press release did not seem important to note. If other editors feel differently, however, I'm open to discussing the matter.
Because I have prepared this draft on behalf of South Beach Diet, I am looking for editors to help me review this draft and to offer any suggestions for improvement. If it seems that this new draft is better than the version in place now, I'd ask that another editor take it live, replacing the current article. As stated, I won't be making any edits here myself, so I appreciate other editors taking the time to review. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 14:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and made some brave edits of the page, which may or may not please the talkers here. I put all studies together, added some critical studies and moved the ones in the criticism section to the studies section. Someone needs to find some neutral positive scientific studies, because the two listed there are by the author and a company profiting from the product. I believe that there are numerous studies that show that SBD has positive effects for some patients. I also fixed what I thought was some overly casual wording in the body of the article. LaMona ( talk) 20:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Following a discussion with LaMona above, I have mocked up outlines of what would potentially be included in two separate articles splitting up the diet and brand. I agree that there should only be one page for the diet itself. While there have been some updates in recent books—an exercise program was introduced in The South Beach Diet Supercharged, and the latest book is about a three-phase program to test gluten-sensitivity—they all very much follow the same principles and fall under the South Beach Diet umbrella. In my proposed draft, I labeled them as updates of the original three-phase diet.
New outlines:
I think there would be some cross-over in the first section of each article. The History and development section of the diet's article would discuss the books, though perhaps more briefly than what I originally proposed, and the brand's article would have to repeat some information about how the diet was established. What do others think? WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 19:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hi again, LaMona—after some thought this weekend, I believe working through this article one section at a time will be the easiest way to move forward, focusing on this article as the (diet) article and considering (brand) separately. If that sound good, I'd like to suggest concentrating on the History section first and revisiting the Studies and Difference from other "low-carb" diets later on.
Your reworking of the language in the current History and theory section definitely improved readability, though I still think more needs to be done regarding the content and sourcing problems. Mainly, the current section includes quite a bit of tangential background information, not to mention it is sourced almost entirely to the South Beach Diet book (plus another study supporting a statement unrelated to the history of the diet). Because of these issues, I think a rewrite of the section would be best.
As I mentioned Friday, I reviewed the language I'd previously prepared for History and theory and removed any details that centered around the South Beach Diet as a brand. One caveat: the current section is of course called History and theory although I think anything "theory" would best be discussed under the section now called The diet, and my suggested version is simply called History. Topics such as the glycemic index would be better addressed there, while this section I believe should focus on chronology. We can address that material in that section next. I'd appreciate if you could review that language below and let me know your thoughts:
The South Beach Diet was developed in the mid- 1990s by preventive cardiologist Dr. Arthur Agatston with the assistance of Marie Almon, the former chief dietitian at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach, Florida. [1] [2] [3] Originally called the Modified Carbohydrate Diet, the plan was renamed the South Beach Diet after the South Beach neighborhood in Miami Beach near Agatston's practice. [1] [4]
The diet plan was initially developed for Agatston's own patients to reduce their risk of heart attacks and strokes. Agatston noticed that the American Heart Association's then-recommended low-fat and high-carbohydrate diet was not lowering his patients' weight, cholesterol or blood sugar levels, but that his patients on the Atkins diet were experiencing weight loss. Unwilling to prescribe the Atkins approach to patients with cardiac issues due to the diet's allowance of saturated fat and limitation of carbohydrates containing fiber and other nutrients, Agatston referenced medical research to build an eating plan that categorized fats and carbohydrates as good or bad and emphasized lean protein and fiber. [2] [1] [5] Agatston's patients successfully lost weight on the plan and experienced improved health. [2] [5]
The plan grew in popularity as a method of weight loss as Agatston reported the results at conferences and patients distributed photocopies outlining the diet throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s. The diet also attracted attention when a South Florida TV station reported on the diet three years in a row and partnered with local grocery stores to encourage residents to try the plan. [2] [5] [3]
The first book describing the diet, The South Beach Diet, was written by Agatston and was released in April 2003. [1] [6] [7] In 2004, Bill Clinton revealed that he had lost 35 pounds by following the South Beach Diet. [8] [9] [10] He became one of several celebrities to publicly state they were on the South Beach Diet, including Nicole Kidman and Bette Midler. [11] [3]
In 2008, Agatston published The South Beach Diet Supercharged, an expanded version of the original diet plan, written with Joseph Signorile, a University of Miami professor of exercise physiology. The book's new material was based on new medical research and includes an interval training program. [12] [13]The South Beach Wake-Up Call, a book outlining the South Beach Diet and the issues with unhealthy lifestyle choices common among Americans, was released in 2011. [14] [15] [16] In 2013, The South Beach Diet Gluten Solution was published. The book was written by Agatston with pediatrician Dr. Natalie Geary and focuses on helping readers understand gluten sensitivity and how it may affect them, along with a three-phase program to test their own sensitivity to gluten. [17] [18] [19]References
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
As you review, you'll see I've kept the main ideas that are currently in the section, including Agatston's views on low-fat diets and the Atkins diet, but I've summarized them into one paragraph and made sure all statements are supported by independent, third-party sources. I removed the mention of David J. Jenkins' work entirely, because it focused on the development of the glycemic index, rather than development of the South Beach Diet.
I've also expanded the section to touch on other information not currently covered, including: who developed the diet; when and where it was developed; why it was developed; and how it came to prominence. Some of the books about the diet are mentioned here—I chose the ones that present significant updates to the original plan—but I did not go into too much detail, assuming they will be covered more thoroughly in a subsequent brand article.
Happy to discuss specific additions or exclusions made in this draft with you or any other editors that might come across this message. If its agreed that this is an improvement upon what is currently in the History section, I'd like to request that this be moved over to the the live article. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 20:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Last week I posted a request on this page seeking to replace the current article with a new one; that was met with some skepticism, and opposition to such a major overhaul without a careful consideration of the merits. That's fine, so I'd like to take a step back and start over with a small request that I think should be easier to find consensus on. That is, the article is currently missing an infobox, a standard element of many company articles. I have prepared one, the markup for which is in the collapsed box below.
{{infobox brand
| name = South Beach Diet
| logo =
| image =
| caption =
| type = Diet plan, books, food line
| currentowner = SBD Holdings Group Corp.
| origin = [[United States]]
| introduced = 1990s
| discontinued =
| related =
| markets =
| previousowners =
| trademarkregistrations = South Beach Diet, South Beach Diet Delivery, South Beach Diet Gluten Solution
| ambassadors =
| tagline =
| website ={{URL|southbeachdiet.com}}
I will also be making a fair use case for the inclusion of a company logo to be placed inside it soon; I have no particular opinion about the inclusion of other parameters, so if an editor is willing to implement this, they can either leave them in or remove them. Thanks, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 19:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
This infobox is for a brand. This particular article is primarily about the diet (History and theory, The diet, Scientific studies, Confusion with "low-carb" diets, Criticism) with limited discussion of the associated brand (South Beach Living packaged foods). This infobox is probably more appropriate for South Beach Living. - SummerPhD ( talk) 04:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought I should explain more clearly what I see as the differences between what could be two articles about SBD.
Diet as science - While popular diets have become often seen as fads, (and some of them are not scientifically based), diets developed for health are part of preventive medicine, with a medical basis. Therefore, an article about a health-related diet should have the same tone and content as an article about, say, information about the relationship between cholesterol and health, and medicines used for this medical condition. The origins of the SBD, before it became a big money-maker, mainly around the books, is based on science. Therefore, it is important to separate the science from the "fad" or "popularity" aspects. Once moved beyond the medical control, there is virtually no way to estimate or claim medical value, as no health checking is being done on users of the diet. By that I mean that people on the diet are not getting blood tests or other tests to see if the diet achieves its medical goals (or even if there are medical goals). In fact, *if* there were information about its continued use under medical supervision (e.g. statistics on how many doctors or dieticians are putting patients on this diet; follow-up studies about the health changes, etc.) then that should be reported here. There are sites that advise that one should not attempt the diet without medical supervision, but clearly the fact of the brand having been distributed as NYTimes best-sellers most likely means that many people are indeed following it (or beginning to, since we know that diets are often abandoned) without that supervision.
Diet as brand - Unlike other preventive medicines like statins or even aspirin, diets are not necessarily under the control of a person's medical advisor. In this sense, diets become popular and/or faddish without any medical treatment being involved. (Note: the same could be said of many exercise regimes.) Thus, diets move from the scientific, medical area and can become 'brands' with no involvement of medical personnel. In this phase, diets may lose their scientific rationale and become followed for esthetic reasons (weight loss, primarily) rather than medical reasons. This is where SBD as a popular diet brand belongs; this is where the best-selling books should be emphasized, the treatment of SBD in the popular press. It should not be treated as equal to or the same as the medical use of the diet, and no medical claims should be made regarding this usage of the diet described in the books. In other words, one should not imply that non-medical use of the diet has any medical value, and therefore the brand should focus on the sociology of the popularity of the diet.
It is for these reasons that I feel that the two topics should be treated separately: SBD as medical treatment vs. SBD as non-medically controlled popular weight-loss promise. LaMona ( talk) 18:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
LaMona, here is my reply to your comment in the following thread, asking about Axess magazine. Axess is a publication of Celebrity Cruises—like an in-flight magazine, but for cruise ships. While it does not have a full website of its own, it has an associated blog called Catalyst, and Axess itself has a profile page there; I was working from the print version. Knowing that you considered a New York Times article in my draft a "puff piece" I am quite certain you will dislike this source. However, it is an interview with Dr. Agatston used to support non-medical details about the diet's early history. In addition, please note that it is never used standalone any of the four times it appears. I simply have used it to reinforce other sources, and I'm prepared to explain each instance in detail if need be. While its inclusion may not be strictly necessary, I do believe the source is appropriate for its intended purpose. Best, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 15:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
An important preface: I have previously suggested major changes to this article, also making clear that I am doing so while working on a consulting basis for South Beach Diet. My operating premise is that the current article is outdated, inaccurate, poorly written, and largely unsupported by reliable sources.
However, the drafts I presented were viewed quite skeptically, so in this message I will focus on just one section, and explain why I think the current History and theory section is so problematic. I've avoided suggesting any specific solutions or new text here, aiming first to find agreement that something should be done. Here's what I see:
To editors who have previously been involved in this discussion, and anyone else who may be coming to it new, I would be interested to hear what you think about the best way to address these issues. Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 21:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Since I was the editor in question ... I am mostly interested in having the health-related aspects of this diet presented in line with our WP:PAGs and trimming anything obiously NPOV. The "fad" word is I think fair in view of the tone of the Harvard Health Letter piece, and "diet fads" is one of the Medical Subject Headings used by PUBMED for that article. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI
The version current as of today (Nov 2 2014) has been edited by folks with medical knowledge User:Doc_James and User:Alexbrn. Just so you know that the sources that exist in this version are considered medically sound. LaMona ( talk) 00:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)