Misplaced Pages

Talk:South Beach Diet: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:38, 4 November 2014 editWWB Too (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,164 edits →Remaining (and new) problems with the article: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 18:59, 4 November 2014 edit undoDoc James (talk | contribs)Administrators312,292 edits →Remaining (and new) problems with the articleNext edit →
Line 255: Line 255:


This is definitely ''not'' a comprehensive list, but in the interests of keeping the discussion focused, I'd like to focus on one or all of the above. Any and all editors previously involved, including ], are encouraged to weigh in. Best, ] (] · ]) 18:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC) This is definitely ''not'' a comprehensive list, but in the interests of keeping the discussion focused, I'd like to focus on one or all of the above. Any and all editors previously involved, including ], are encouraged to weigh in. Best, ] (] · ]) 18:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
::Yup agree. ] (] · ] · ]) 18:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:59, 4 November 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the South Beach Diet article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 21 days 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the South Beach Diet. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the South Beach Diet at the Reference desk.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFood and drink Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

 Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
WikiProject iconBrands
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The contents of the South Beach Living page were merged into South Beach Diet on 2 November 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

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 = ]
| 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)

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

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at A. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

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

  1. ^ Alex Witchel (April 14, 2004). "Doctor Wants 'South Beach' To Mean Hearts, Not Bikinis". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
  2. ^ Chan Tran (2012). "Simply Live Better with Dr. Agatston". [Axess Magazine. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  3. ^ Allison Adato (April 26, 2004). "Life's a South Beach". People. Retrieved 28 July 2014.
  4. Mayo Clinic Staff (June 5, 2014). "South Beach Diet". Mayo Clinic. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
  5. ^ "Diet Wars - Interview With Author Agatston, Author of the South Beach Diet". Frontline. August 8, 2004. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
  6. Abby Goodnough (October 7, 2003). "New Doctor, New Diet, But Still No Cookies". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
  7. Jefferey A. Trachtenberg (June 30, 2004). "Diet Book Found Novel Ways to Get To Top -- and Stay". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 28 July 2014.
  8. Frank Franklin (January 15, 2004). "Bill Clinton loses weight, touts exercise and South Beach Diet". USA Today. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
  9. Philip Sherwell (October 3, 2010). "Bill Clinton's new diet: nothing but beans, vegetables and fruit to combat heart disease". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 11 June 2014.
  10. Coeli Carr (October 25, 2010). "Could You Live on the 'Jennifer Aniston Diet?'". ABC. Retrieved 11 June 2014.
  11. Tania Deluzuriaga (November 17, 2004). "South Beach Comes To Lunch". Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
  12. Andrea Sachs (May 27, 2008). "The South Beach Diet Doctor Is Back". Time. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
  13. Nanci Hellmich (April 30, 2008). "'South Beach Diet' author's new plan draws fire". USA Today. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
  14. Patricia Corrigan (October 26, 2011). "'South Beach Diet' doc takes aim at 'toxic' lifestyles". St. Louis Jewish Light. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
  15. Diana Gonzalez (October 13, 2011). "South Beach Diet Doctor Talks Mega Foods". WTVJ. Retrieved 23 July 2014.
  16. Janice Lloyd (October 11, 2010). "Agatston's updated 'Beach' goes younger". USA Today. Retrieved 10 August 2014.
  17. Elizabeth De Armas (April 2, 2013). "Dr. Agatston of 'South Beach Diet' tackles gluten in new book". The Miami Herald. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
  18. Lidia Dinkova (January 25, 2014). "Removing gluten from diet helps some greatly, but not all". The Miami Herald. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
  19. David Rogers (October 13, 2013). "Concierge pediatrician opens practice in Royal Poinciana Plaza". Palm Beach Daily News. Retrieved 29 July 2014.

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.
  • 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".
  • 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."
    • 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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".
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

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)" . 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)

Remaining (and new) problems with the article

This is a much better article now than it was last week; thanks are due especially to Doc James and Alexbrn for your work here. That said, some issues not related to medical claims remain: it is still outdated in a few places, some relevant info is missing, and some good faith edits have nevertheless introduced POV. Most of this I believe could be solved with just an additional sentence or two in each section; here's a list of what I see as being most important:

  • The introduction is too short, and not especially informative. It certainly doesn't follow the advice of MOS:LEAD to be a proper introduction to the subject. Indeed, the first and third sentences privilege value judgments over specific information about how the diet is intended to work—i.e. "has three phases which emphasize eating high-fiber, low-glycemic carbohydrates, unsaturated fats, and lean protein, and categorizes carbohydrates and fats as good or bad"—which I believe is what readers would expect to find here. Besides, I agree with LaMona that "fad diet" is pejorative; WP:LABEL should apply.
  • Similarly, the History section consists only of a few details about how the diet was conceived. There is certainly more to the "story" of the South Beach Diet, readily available in (non-medical) third-party sources: about the publication of the first book, its rise in popularity, the brand's 2011 acquisition, and so forth. I think many readers would expect to find that here, too.
  • The Packaged foods section gives the impression that no South Beach-branded food line exists today, which is false. (The draft I had offered before included up-to-date information about the extant products.) Meanwhile, the current section includes more details than seems necessary about a discontinued food line, such as calorie content.

This is definitely not a comprehensive list, but in the interests of keeping the discussion focused, I'd like to focus on one or all of the above. Any and all editors previously involved, including Jytdog, are encouraged to weigh in. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yup agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:South Beach Diet: Difference between revisions Add topic