Talk:South Beach Diet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

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)

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) 21:30, 1 May 2010 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.200.121 (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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.

You could exercise by reaching over and turning off the caps lock key you fat retard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.73.179 (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Where's the Criticism?

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/PenaltyKillah^{CANUCKLEHEAD?} 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If the carbs in beer are not maltose, what are they? Starch? Does anyone know their glycemic index? Paul Studier (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Written Like a Manual

This entire article is written like a manual.

NPOV attached.

Missing areas:

• Introduction
• History
• Overall Description
• Percent of Population Usage
• Proponents
• Controversy
• Criticism

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)

Fats

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)

New draft of this article

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:

• User:WWB Too/South_Beach_Diet

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 do not see problems with the article sufficient to merit WP:TNT. I am also very skeptical of "...the editorial department at the South Beach Diet brand...researching the diet to create a thorough and balanced replacement for this article." I'd say you need to partialize the problems you believe exist and discuss individual issues one at a time here. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Skepticism is no problem, SummerPhD. It's absolutely on me to demonstrate that my suggestion will make for a better encyclopedia article. I intended to keep the above message fairly short, but I'm more than happy to present the case for a complete rewrite. And I'm not opposed to going section-by-section, though I'd like to see what you think after I post that here. I'll start work on a more detailed explanation of the existing problems; in the meantime, what would you say to moving over just the updated Bibliography? Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 01:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why those particular books were selected and others not. A comprehensive list would be a directory while this list is indiscriminate. (The existing list is also indiscriminate. Swapping bad content for bad content is not an improvement.) - SummerPhD (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure quite what you're asking, SummerPhD; these are all of the books written by Arthur Agatston, creator of the South Beach Diet, about the South Beach Diet. Looking for relevant guidelines, I noticed that WikiProject Bibloigraphies acknowledges that WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE are sometimes used to challenge their inclusion but, indeed, as that wikiproject's existence attests, bibliographies are common and useful elements of many Wikipedia entries. Following that project's advice, I think it would be a good idea to add a sentence just before the list begins, explaining what it means. How does that sound to you? Alternatively, what would you see as an ideal outcome for this section? Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those are books about the South Beach Diet. As it is not a complete list of every such book (which would not be appropriate) what objective, discriminate inclusion criteria were used to select those particular books? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

SummerPhD, I did provide the answer to that question in the first sentence of my previous reply. I'd also asked for your view of what a better outcome for this section might be, although you haven't suggested it yet. Regardless of your intention, so far your replies do not seem to be focused on helping me find a suitable path forward. You seem rather busy on Wikipedia, and I'd prefer to work with an editor who has more time to consider my suggestions. While I'll welcome any feedback from you in the future, I'll start looking elsewhere for assistance. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This does not seem to be "all of the books written by Arthur Agatston, creator of the South Beach Diet, about the South Beach Diet". Amazon, which would miss any that are out of print, lists several that do not seem to be on this list. As it is, the list it pointlessly long. What is the intended purpose of the list? It provides no meaningful information on the books, serving as a mere directory or, perhaps, to demonstrate (rather bluntly) that Agatston's diet is Agatston's industry.

From my brief review of the version you've worked up, it does not seem to be solely focused on "...organization...rearranging topics...information about the diet's development and early years...background information about the work on David J. Jenkins...(and)...updates from the last several years". One thing not mentioned in that list is the compression of the list in the current "Criticism" section into "Reception and studies". You start with a laudatory first paragraph: a general "experts" claim for positives with two specifically giving unqualified general thumbs ups, a study "noted" one positive thing, Consumer Reports (in a move that seems well outside their typical style) simply says that, gee, it works for quick weight loss. Your new section follows the laudatory opening with some concerns, which you then answer. This article is not a debate. You skip the numbers from Journal of General Internal Medicine. You skip Dr. Elizabeth Mayer-Davis. Heck, you jettison everything currently in the section. A WP:TNT approach runs roughshod over all current content: Why are each of these being tossed? You might have valid reasons. Your approach does not explain this.

I do not believe WP:TNT is appropriate here. If it were, I would be hard pressed to think of a worse idea than having the editorial department of the company write bout itself. Wikipedia is a process. No article is ever "finished". Your version is a product. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

To your last point first, SummerPhD: I hope I did not imply that my draft should be considered "finished"; I merely think it is a better summary of SBD and more guideline-compliant than the current version. That said, with this message you raise some fair questions about how I handled some of the current content. Since several of these judgment calls were made earlier in the summer, I'll have to revisit my research and explain, or possibly adjust my draft. Looks like this will be more difficult than I anticipated, but I'm glad we're going through this process—one way or the other, we'll get a better article for sure. It's the start of my Labor Day weekend here, so I'll pick this up early next week. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Just responding to the bibliography question, this could be handled with a link in External Sources to either the books page on the SBD web site, or with a link to an Amazon search on the author's name (if it is intended to be the books of a single author). Both of these would be "self-updating." In addition, it would make sense to place the same link on the author's page. Also note that bibliographies are not generally sourced, but do follow a standard format of author, title, publisher, date, and ISBN. LaMona (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Dropping by via Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies Hi WWB Too. Thanks for being upfront about your affiliation and for playing by the rules. First, a general comment. If a employee/consultant/contractor (hence "employee") of a corporation makes a request for a specific, limited change in an article, and can provide a rationale and (if necessary) sources for the change, the change will most likely sail through (modulo WP:NEUTRALITY, etc.). The change can be vetted quickly and it should be obvious that the corporation is not trying to hijack the article.

On the other hand, if an employee (or any other editor, for that matter) proposes a rewrite of an entire article, especially one where there are likely to be financial repercussions, the default response will be to reject the changes. A more patient editor (like SummerPhD) will look through to see if there are any major problems, and on finding one or two, will likely conclude that searching for others is not a good use of the editor's time and reject the change in toto. Proposing small, obviously-correct changes in sequence allows the changes to get more scrutiny, and allows us to build up some trust that you know what you're doing and you're really here to improve the article consistent with our policies.

With that being said, you had asked about the bibliography section. In looking at your proposed list, I'm asking myself the same question Summer did: why are these books listed? The immediate impression is To sell more South Beach Diet books. That's not going to fly. (It's ok if a bibliography ends up selling more books, and articles like George Orwell bibliography almost certainly have, but that can't be seen as the primary goal.) If you limit the section to the two or three most important books (and describe why they're important), you should be fine.

What about a Bibliography of the South Beach Diet article? I could see that passing WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NEUTRALITY given two conditions: a) there exist SBD bibliographies published by folks not associated with SBD, and preferably in the peer-reviewed literature, and b) the bibliography also includes scholarly work critical of the SBD.

Hope that was useful.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, LM and LC. Some suggestions worth considering here, and I will. As to the "goal" of the bibliography section, well, it already exists but it is quite outdated. Nothing more complicated than seeking to make it more current. I have worked on bibliography sections in other contexts and have not previously come across this particular issue, so I will reassess. Likewise, I think I will certainly change my approach to work through this article section-by-section. The current article is problematic in many ways, although I'm afraid my "here's a whole new version" approach did not include a sufficient explanation for how this is the case. More to come after the weekend. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Some brave edits

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)

Suggested outlines for split South Beach Diet articles

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:

South Beach Diet

1. History and development

2. The diet

2.1. Overview

2.2. Phases

2.3. Updates

3. Reception and studies

4. References

5. External links

South Beach Diet (brand)

1. Overview

2. Publications

3. Products

4. Digital resources

5. Bibliography

6. References

7. External links

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)

WWB Too Thanks for working this up. I'm going to put some things in my own words to see if I've gotten it. The diet page will talk about what the diet is and how the diet is followed, putting it into the context of low carb diets (the heading there should be "relation to other low carb diets", not "confusion"), maybe adding some more background information generally on the topic of diets, with references. Presumably this page will also present the original text(s) and perhaps say how the diet has changed over time, and what the scientific basis was for the change. The heading word "Reception" really must be dropped. What we want here are actual scientific analyses, which are not under the rubric of "reception." It's currently "Scientific studies", which is fine. Leave it. The brand article is then more about the company, and should include who founded the company, how it has changed hands, and how the branding has changed over time. It should include (if there is anything to say) any significant advertising campaigns. Given this division, I'm not sure where the bibliography goes. I don't know much about it, but if the books each delineate a "new" diet, then I think they go on the diet page, but with information about what changed with each book over time. If, instead, they are more generally about the product (unlikely, I would think) then they would fit on the brand page. So I would like to see the diet article be focused on the facts behind the diet, with less detail about SBD products, except as they support the facts behind the diet, and I would like the brand page to be about the company and how it has handled branding (e.g. what trademarks it has), advertising, etc. Does this make sense?

Meanwhile, I think that the current history section could be greatly beefed up, even with just some better wording.In fact, I may take a stab at some wording issues that make the article read more like a "casual chat about SBD" rather than an encyclopedia article. LaMona (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Cool, I appreciate your work here, LaMona. I generally agree with your summary of the purpose of each of the two pages. A few things I'll look at before I follow up next:

• I'd like to take a closer look at your edits to the Difference from other "low-carb" diets section to see if any other distinguishing points can be added based on the sources I've found.
• As far as beefing up the History section, I think some of what I previously drafted can accomplish that; I'll revisit that language and revise it to fit with the page's new goals in mind. Once that's done, I'll post it here for you and anyone else to review.
• I believe I have some additional studies for the Studies section as well, perhaps for the next reply after.

Thanks again for working with me on this, I'm looking forward to seeing what we can do here. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 02:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggested update to history of diet

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:

Revised History language

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. 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.

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. Agatston's patients successfully lost weight on the plan and experienced improved health.

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.

The first book describing the diet, The South Beach Diet, was written by Agatston and was released in April 2003. In 2004, Bill Clinton revealed that he had lost 35 pounds by following the South Beach Diet. He became one of several celebrities to publicly state they were on the South Beach Diet, including Nicole Kidman and Bette Midler.

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.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. 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.

References

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)

I made some minor changes, but most of what is in here is promotional. It could be used in the article on the brand in some cases. (e.g. celebrities on the diet). The glycemic index is featured prominently in the NYT article I cite, with some scientific background. The NYT article you were citing, BTW, was a puff piece in the cooking section, so I have substituted a solid article that includes comments by dieticians and other doctors, as well as a good bit of background on the science.

I have to make note of your change from "Agatston and Marie Almon" to "with the assistance of Marie Almon". This is one of those insidious bits of sexism that can so easily creep into articles, and that we must be careful about. Almon is co-author on studies and papers with Agatston, with equal "billing." I'm going to assume they worked together as equal colleagues, not as "Dr. and assistant" as one might surmise from the use of that term. Unfortunately, the books do not have "look inside" on Amazon so I can't see exactly how she is credited on the first book, but articles that I can find list her as the head dietician in his clinic. LaMona (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, LaMona. Thanks for looking at the draft and including some of the proposed changes. However, I'm afraid we seem to have very different views about how to approach this material. Some of your recent edits (and comments) suggest to me that we should seek input from other editors, namely:

• To call a New York Times article a "puff piece" is rather extreme; even a lifestyle article from this publication is WP:RS and should be acceptable.

Yep, puff piece. No analysis, no criticism, and no science. Even NYT does them. I suggest folks read the two articles and decide. LaMona (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• The Goodnough article you added in its place—which I had used as a source for other details—doesn't support everything you have used it to cite. It neither mentions Marie Almon nor that the diet was called the Modified Carbohydrate Diet, so we've lost some necessary sourcing with this change.

• Yes, that still needs a good citation, which I haven't found, although there are numerous books and articles that say "Agatston and Marie Almon". I shall mark it "citation needed". It hasn't had a citation before, in any case. LaMona (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Added back in the citation that names the original diet name. LaMona (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why you didn't use some of the other sources included in my draft. For instance, the Mayo Clinic calls the diet a "modified low-carbohydrate diet".

• Mayo Clinic is in there -- look at the references. It's a good article. LaMona (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• You don't quite say what you find "promotional" in my draft aside from a glancing mention of celebrity endorsements; if you think anything in it specifically runs afoul of WO:NOTADVERTISING or WP:NPOV, please share. Besides the celebrities, I'm guessing it may also have something to do with the publication history.

• No, it had to do with the "popularity" stuff, like saying that a TV show featured it, etc. That information, IMO, goes into the article on the brand -- how the brand developed, how popular it was, how it appeared in popular media. This is the *science* article, so that doesn't belong here. LaMona (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• • To the first point, it's a simple matter of record that the diet became a bit of a celebrity fad; as this ABC News story put it: "When President Bill Clinton spoke about the South Beach Diet, he sent the book over the top."

• Brand article. LaMona (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• • As to the books, they have been the primary vehicle through which information about the diet has been disseminated to mainstream audiences, and each one listed represents a point where the diet evolved. As well, omitting their mention would imply that the diet has remained unchanged since the 1990s.

• Given that the history section doesn't get into the actual definition of the diet, only background, perhaps that goes in a separate section - maybe in the section with the phases, or after it. It's hard to have it before the diet has been explained, because you are talking about changes to something you haven't yet talked about. LaMona (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding Marie Almon, she is not listed as a co-author on any of the books. The difference between the current "and" and my suggested "with assistance from" is not that big a deal to me, but I am concerned that you are making unsupported assumptions about her role, while suggesting that "sexism" is a factor here. It is not.

• No, I'm actually reading what the third party resources say, and they say that the diet was developed by a cardiologist and a dietician. It sounds to me like they each contributed based on their expertise in terms of the development of the diet. The books were written by Agetston, but Almon is still the Director of Nutrition at the Institute. I think it would be good to emphasize the books in the brand article, because those are how the diet became known to the public. This article should be about the diet as a medical proposal. LaMona (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind continuing to work with you, but I feel that you're being a bit unreasonable and opaque on what you think is acceptable and what isn't. Based on the list above, I think we would benefit from the perspective of another editor. I'll begin looking for someone with more experience with this subject matter, although I'll be happy to consider your feedback as well. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not working "with" you. I'm working "with" me, and don't feel that I have any obligation to put anything into the article that I would not put in based on my own judgment. Anyone can edit this article, and I was just trying to be helpful. But you and I do not have the same ideas on what should go into the article, and you are free to solicit help from other editors. So far, though, none seems to be forthcoming. LaMona (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I see. I was under the impression that we were working collaboratively, as Wikipedia is meant to be. I am quite certain my proposed changes are encyclopedic, guideline compliant, and provide readers with a better understanding of the diet's history. I also believe that you are choosing not to take my suggestions seriously. And while we do disagree about what this section should include, I do hope you'll join any future conversations on this page. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding an infobox to this article

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.

Markup

{{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)

I added the registered trademarks, which I often find useful. On the trademark pages, the company is listed as "SBD Holdings Group Corp." I placed that in 'currentowner' because it makes it easier to look up company info. LaMona (talk) 22:40, 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)

Thanks for the feedback, LaMona and SummerPhD. South Beach Living products were discontinued several years ago, so that would not be the right place for this infobox.

SummerPhD, it's true that the current article discusses the diet more than the brand, although both are worthy of encyclopedic treatment. I think this is the page for both; I'm not flatly opposed to the creation of separate South Beach Diet (diet) and South Beach Diet (brand) articles, but the two are basically synonymous, so I would see one page as ideal.

For what it's worth, South Beach Diet the brand was acquired by MidOcean Partners in 2011, and other changes have been made (as my proposed draft includes) so there is quite a bit that's relevant but missing now. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 02:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It does seem to me that the brand is South Beach Diet, since that is what is trademarked. I could imagine a page for the diet itself (although there appears to be more than one under that brand, they could probably be treated as a whole). However, other than this "one trick pony" the company itself doesn't seem to be interesting, and the brand and the company are pretty much indistinguishable. Therefore, I would include limited company information on the page for the brand (perhaps just one section where one goes through the history of ownership). The advantage of having a separate page for the diet and for the brand would be that the diet page could expand the discussion of the scientific pros and cons, and wouldn't need to have much information on the author or the company. Maybe Talk could mock up some skeletal models of what those pages would contain? LaMona (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, LaMona. I'm willing to give it a try to split the topics up into diet and brand, so I will start working on that. Also, hope you don't mind, but I've moved the end of my comment back up above your reply, just so the chain of authorship is clear to anyone reading later. More from me soon, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I am skeptical that an article about the brand alone will be accepted as a stand-alone article. Best to keep the information about the brand here in this article, with appropriate prose to distinguish the topics. As for an infobox, we don't need infoboxes on diet articles. Our former featured article paleolithic diet has none, and neither does Atkins diet, Stillman diet, and others listed in list of diets. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Science vs. Brand

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)

I'm not entirely convinced that two articles are necessary. What you describe above is an evolution from a scientific-based diet to a brand. That could be handled well within one article. In looking at other diet articles, some like Atkins can also be considered brands, but it doesn't seem necessary to split out into two articles.

In addition, there are plenty of reliable secondary (not primary) sources about the diet, its effectiveness, associated medical issues, etc. I am skeptical (and I may be wrong) that one will find such sources discussing the diet in the context of a brand. Therefore I doubt that an article about the brand would survive as stand-alone for long before it gets merged back into the diet article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Amatulić for your input. I think it's also worth pointing out that the South Beach Diet, while initially developed for health and not aesthetic reasons (though weight loss was always part of the diet's goal), was only prescribed by Dr. Agatston for a few years before it became mainstream via local television and then books. It wasn't widely adopted by the medical community before the general public latched onto it, so that evolution from a scientific-based diet to a brand was a very short one. I'll continue to check back over the next few days to see if anyone has additional thoughts. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Amatulić I agree that two articles are not strictly necessary, if the topics are clearly separated in a single article. The tendency I have seen, however, is to blend the two such that the scientific basis (which can be questioned) is not distinct from the popularity. We know that it is a popular diet in the public's consciousness, that the books were best-sellers, that celebrities announced that they were on the diet. What we don't have is scientific evidence that the diet has specific health benefits. So in the latest version of the history, there is the statement that patients lost weight and experienced improved health, but neither of the proposed references is reliable medical information. The statement that it "was only prescribed by Dr. Agatston for a few years before it became mainstream via local television and then books" is not quite factual. Factually, Agatston himself promoted it via popular books (with a catchy name) before scientific proof of its medical efficacy existed - something which could even be considered unethical within the medical profession if one makes claims of medical benefits. So rather than having the diet magically "become popular" I think that the article needs to describe agency to Agatston, and to state that, while undoubtedly he thought the diet a medically sound one, he took it public without scientific proof. The rest is the story of the brand. LaMona (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

LaMona, I have no issue with including medical information if some can be found. I had difficulty finding literature reviews or systematic reviews that talk about the diet specifically. If we don't have scientific evidence related to specific health benefits, the article should still summarize what sources we do have. After all, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to prove anything, but to accurately represent what has been published in reliable sources.

I have already added four or five published medical articles that either find problems with the diet, or say it fails to show medical benefits. The only articles that claim benefits were from studies he himself ran, and those are cited. So I think that sources are accurately included, and there is really no difficulty in finding them. LaMona (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Here are two good sources of reliable medical articles: PubMed, Public Library of Science LaMona (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked back at my proposed wording that you took issue with and I see your point. For others, the sentence was: "Agatston's patients successfully lost weight on the plan and experienced improved health." Would you be open to rephrasing it as "According to Agatston, his patients lost weight and experienced improved health."? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have that as a quote/cite, sure, it can be added. I don't have a citation for that, however. LaMona (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi LaMona, I've been busy for a bit, but I'd like to revisit this topic now. Before I continue, I think we've had some miscommunications in this thread, in part because I wasn't specific enough in how I described my intended usage of medical sources. I will aim to be more specific in the future. Meanwhile, I have one quick response and one thought about how to move forward.

Regarding our most recent exchange, I do in fact have a citation for my "According to Agatston" suggestion, from a Frontline interview. The direct quote from Agatston is: "So we decided to try a diet basically of the good fats and the good carbs, in myself and in my patients first. I was amazed by the results, after really giving up on doing diet counseling, on having all these patients come back thinner and feeling better."

About moving forward, I'd like to try a different approach to considering this article's content. Rather than simply presenting drafts for review, I think it may help if I first explain the problems I currently see with the History section. If we can find consensus about this, it may point us in the direction of agreeable changes to be made. I'll be starting a new thread shortly. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:54, 29 October 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)

Issues with History section

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:

• "History" and "theory" are different topics, and combining them here is likely to be confusing, especially considering the diet itself (the theory) is explained more thoroughly in the The diet section.

• The section stops short. It explains how Dr. Agatston conceived of the diet, but then doesn't say what happens next. There is very little "history" in this History section.

• The section's first sentence is unsupported by any source, as the [citation needed] tag correctly observes.

• Moreover, nearly all of the second paragraph is unsupported by sources.

• These sentences are a bit clunky and could use a rewrite: "His investigations into the reasons for the failure to stay with the diet led him to the scientific work with insulin resistance and the glycemic index, which informed his diet plan. Agatston's premise is that refined carbohydrates in the diet lead to spikes in blood sugar and thus increase hunger in the dieters."

• There is a disconnect between the first and second parts of this sentence: "At the same time, he felt that the low-carbohydrate diet popularized by Robert Atkins in the 1970s, but in his opinion such a diet would lead to too few carbohydrates, too much saturated fat, too little fiber, and an increased risk of heart disease." The sentence never says what "he felt".

• The source for that sentence is simply "Agatston p 21", which isn't really enough information to go on. It does indicate that the source is one of the South Beach Diet books (I'm assuming), which perhaps should be replaced with a secondary source.

• The last sentence of the section—"While considered a healthy diet, there have been no long-term studies to support the claimed cardiovascular benefits"—has nothing to do with either the history or the theory of the diet. It would fit better elsewhere in the article, mostly likely Scientific and other studies.

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)

* Can you give a pointer to where you found this citation?: " Chan Tran (2012). "Simply Live Better with Dr. Agatston". [Axess Magazine." I can't find an "Axess" magazine in English (there is one in Norwegian). Do you have an ISSN or some other identifier? LaMona (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

LaMona, I believe this comment refers to our discussion in the previous thread. I won't move your comment from here, but I will respond to your question above. Meanwhile, I'd like for this thread to focus on discussion of the History and theory section. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, actually, I was comparing the current history section with your original proposal, and looking to see what might be transferred into the article. You are correct that I'm not inclined to consider a cruise company magazine a reliable source. Another comment: I'm not sure about the status of interviews in the sense of original research. Interviews are on the list of primary sources, although qualified with "(depending on context)". Unfortunately, I don't actually see what it "depends on." However, interviews are listed more than once in the lists of primary sources that are there. LaMona (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Your response suggests that you think primary sources are impermissible to use, but this is certainly not the case, particularly for the purpose of establishing unexceptional details (see: WP:USINGPRIMARY). In every case where an interview is used, it was the best option to fill out basic information about the development of the diet. Moreover, I am quite confident they are superior to the prevailing absence of sources in the current version. As the list above indicates, I don't think anything in the existing version is worth saving. Meanwhile, I am still very much interested in hearing from additional editors. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"Your response suggests that you think primary sources are impermissible to use." I thought my response pretty clearly said that I wasn't sure what "(depending on context)" actually referred to, therefore my response was a comment and a kind of question about how one interprets that. You have given your interpretation, which I accept as your interpretation. LaMona (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI, another editor has reduced the History and theory section considerably, so my criticisms listed above no longer apply. I'll likely continue with suggestions, but I expect to do that in a later thread. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That other editor has reduced the entire article considerably, and SBD is now characterized as a "fad diet" which I think is not NPOV because it has definite negative connotations. However, SBD is one of the diets listed on the Food faddism page. I personally have great doubts about the entire Food faddism page, which also lists the Atkins diet. However, note that the Atkins diet page itself is much more expansive than even the previous SBD page, and does not reduce it to a fad diet. Unfortunately, these edits come in the middle of this discussion, and are therefore disruptive. Should they be rolled back? What do others think (if anyone else is reading this page)? LaMona (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The edits were consistent with policy and guidelines. The edits were not disruptive and I strongly suggest you strike that statement. How anybody "feels" is irrelevant to discussing article content. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that I said "disruptive" not "disruptive". There's a difference between the English language term and the WP definition, and I did not intend the WP definition or I would have used that. Yes, it feels disruptive, because we're in the midst of an obviously very long discussion here about the article content, which WWB Too has laid out in detail, and we were in the middle of discussing. A major edit to the article without engaging in the discussion has abruptly ended that discussion before we were able to finish it. That may end up being all for the better, but it was disruptive, in the English language sense. LaMona (talk) 16:58, 2 November 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}

Alexbrn I disagree with the "fad diet" moniker. The fad diet page defines a fad diet as: "1) A particular food or food group is exaggerated and purported to cure specific diseases. 2) Foods are eliminated from an individual’s diet because they are viewed as harmful. 3) An emphasis is placed on eating certain foods to express a particular lifestyle." Examples given are the "grapefruit diet" and "macrobiotics." From a number of reliable sources, we are told that both Atkins and SBD are "balanced" weight-loss diets, with varying levels of success, albeit no proven long term health benefits. They are not fetishistic. That the diet has become a "fad" (in the sense of "popular") is definitely the case, but I do not think it meets the criteria on the Food faddism page. I also think that page is unscientific and uneven. If all of the diets listed there are fad diets, then absolutely any diet meets the definition. As for the rest of the editing of the article, I'm fine with it, just not the "fad diet" statement, which, as I said before, is pejorative, and therefore not NPOV. LaMona (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

would you please address what Alexbrn said about MeSH? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. The definition in MeSH is: "Diets which become fashionable, but which are not necessarily nutritious.(Lehninger 1982, page 484)" [1]. That is not at all the same definition as is used in Food faddism. The full PubMed article is behind a paywall, but here is the abstract of the article (and I presume that the article is MUCH more scientific than the WP Food faddism page):

• "To respond to the question of the best “heart-healthy” diet, we reviewed the effects of common diets on lipids, their efficacy, advantages, and limitations. The high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet is effective for weight loss over the short term, but its long-term benefits remain unproved. The very low-fat diet decreases levels of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and, with lifestyle modifications, may slow progression of coronary atherosclerosis. The high-protein and very low-fat diets are difficult to follow over the long term. The American Heart Association diet, which is rich in fruits, vegetables, and nuts, decreases blood pressure and may be acceptable to most patients. However, it is rich in carbohydrates and may not be suitable for patients who are obese and/or have high levels of triglycerides. In such patients, diet based on foods with a low glycemic index may be an alternative. There is also immense interest in the Mediterranean diet, which is acceptable to most patients, may decrease some biomarkers of coronary atherosclerosis, and may decrease cardiovascular events and death. Despite these options, there is no “fits all” dietary recommendation for prevention of coronary heart disease. Importantly, dietary discretion is only 1 part of lifestyle changes, such as exercise and smoking cessation." LaMona (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

OOPS! what I quoted there is from a different article. The Harvard Health newsletter article is not online (online only since 2006). But the PubMed definition still holds, and you can see the kinds of articles that come under that here. It's really not the same as the WP article on food faddism. LaMona (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Medical Review

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)

It was a fairly light handed review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)