Talk:South Beach diet

What do you think of this diet?

What do people think of the South Beach diet? 164.116.126.126

I eat like that anyway, so my reaction was "What diet?". This kind of "diet", if you want to call it that, just tastes good. My whole family is kind of thin, but obviously I haven't lost any weight because I never really had any other diet. Some things are not too obvious: lard is less saturated than butter and is a perfect replacement for shortening. Probably what you really need to do is adjust your cooking habits. Broccoli is awful if you overcook it, and not that good raw, but truly wonderful when lightly steamed or stir-fried. Fish is dreadful if you don't buy frozen-at-sea fish and keep it frozen until use; good fish is odorless(live fish works too). Even asparagus and Brussels sprouts are yummy if you know how to cook them right. You do have to do your own cooking if you want good food. AlbertCahalan 04:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do I think? I HATE IT! It's better than Atkins, but still too restrictive. I want to be able too eat what I want, and how much I want, and my mom fusses at me a lot for eat too much. At least I know that I'm not the only target. My step-dad gets it a lot too. I wish she'd lay off...both of us. --John R. Sellers 05:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I love the South Beach Diet - when I started it I was 278lbs and at 31 having breathing problems, chest pains and all kind of problems. I am 6'4" and always carried the weight well I thought. I have now lost 53lbs since March and am a lot healthier and fitter, without doing much more exercise. I have to admit that as a total foodie and cook I enjoying using my imagination to create healthy meals within phase I and II and it works for me. I don't miss bread, potatoes or pasta in the slightest. Beer was my big problem, but now I just have few glasses of Argentine malbec instead! ;) Happy days Velkyal 08:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are for improving mainspace pages, not for discussing personal reactions to the subject at hand. See WP:TALK. WLU 11:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Expansion

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)

More information

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)

POV check

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 think, in particular the term 'emphasizes' should be replaced. While the diet certainly has the listed items as goals, inderectly asserting that it possesses traits such as 'ease' seems POV. I'm at a slight loss on how to cleanly otherwise phrase that, though. Bitnine 20:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps expanding the article with a "criticism" section might balance the article a bit? --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 15:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Expert needed

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)

Phase I = Dehydration

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.

SBD

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

Contradiction about dairy products

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

Zone Diet section

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.

South Beach foods by KRAFT

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.