my dad's cardiologist recommended this book to him.
it's got some marketing hustle to it, but it seems pretty reasonable.
for instance, while the guy decries high-glycemic carbs, he also recommends that they should be consumed later on in the diet progression and just regulated in the amounts they are taken in, and he specifically states that one should consume low-glycemic carbs before and high-glycemic carbs after exercise, which I think was one of arclight's disagreements with Atkins.
it uses a ketogenic-like phase that then gradually progresses into more normal eating patterns, and he specifically recommends that people not spend all their time in a ketogenic or near ketogenic state.
what do the S&C gurus think of this diet?
Anything that has anything to do with anything related to, eluding to, involving, or named after South Beach is probably fake, false, gay, lame, cheap, low, drug related, cheesy, macho, trendy, trashy, and illusional.
South Beach is a ghetto that is painted pastel colors and full of losers, drug addicts, and bad people. Anyone that is too fucked up to be where they are from all go to Miami.
thank you for providing ABSOLUTELY no concrete help or data.
if you want to bitch about South Beach the place as opposed to the diet, go to the fucking OG.
I'd go with 'the zone' diet instead. It's easier to maintain in the long run and can be very simple, or more complicated if your looking for more precise results.
It is important information, pointing out where the diet is named after can say alot about the product and it's reliabilty, and the intentions behind the marketing. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.
"It is important information, pointing out where the diet is named after can say alot about the product and it's reliabilty, and the intentions behind the marketing."
so if I create a self-help program, use valid psychological principles like cognitive dissonance and the self-prophecy effect, but market it with wild crazy bullshit, does that invalidate the valid psychological principles it is based on?
I agree with you that the book seems to be trendy, but I saw the book validly address and provide a solution for criticisms of somewhat similar programs that have been made on this board.
While the "good carb, bad carb" bit seemed gimmicky, I know that low-glycemic and high-glycemic carbs do have an effect on weight loss via changes in blood sugar and insulin levels.
The diet also prescribes nothing particularly extreme. It doesn't tell you not to eat any carbs, or to drink grapefruit juice all day, or anything obviously silly like that.
that was enough for me to not write it off instantly and instead ask for advice. I guess I should have specified constructive advice.
I don't care if you don't like South Beach and you think the diet is trendy. That is not helpful.
I care if you have research or personal experience showing the diet does or does not work, and particularly I would like to know why.
I think you should buy the book, and a plane ticket to South Beach.
I'm generalizing a bit, but because it's so easy to overconsume starches and sugars diets that cut most of those things out generally work. Try eating 3000 calories a day of lean proteins and vegetables, it's hard for most people.
South beach diet does work, it is good, but I'd rather go w/ the zone.
edited because I misinterpreted something as an attack
gonna edit, realized that kan may not have intended that as an attack.
I'm a little punchy today, forgive me.
I don't know how good the diet works but here is a web site with some good recipes
http://bestbrand.allrecipes.com/southbeachdiet/default.asp
Sounded like an attack to me
a buddy of mine is on the south beach diet... he has lost a ton of weight (45lbs)in a relatively short time (3months)... he seems to be healthier and happier... i have no scientific evidence saying why it is good but it worked for him... he was a slob before and looks damned good now... i have contemplated trying the diet to see how i feel... but i was wanting more info also... so if anyone has anything valid to say, it would be greatly appreciated
thanks
What do you want to know about it?
I haven't read the book but I've read some of the reviews of it, some of which have pointed out glaring inaccuracies. For example the author recommends no beer be drunk because he claims it contains maltose, which is sugar with a higher G.I. rating than sucrose. He then jumps to the conclusion that beer has the same high G.I. rating as maltose.
The problem with this assumption is that when beer is fermented, nearly all the maltose is converted to alcohol and CO2 and there are only trace amounts remaining. There is in fact hardly any sugar of any kind in most common beers. Most beers contain only very small amounts of carbs, typically around 10-15 grams per 12 ounces. The carb amounts are so small that it is difficult to even test the G.I. rating of beer since the tests generally involve consuming around 50 grams of the carbohydrate in question over a 15 minute period. If you consider light beer like Miller Lite which only has around 3 carbs/12 ounces that would require 17 beers drunk over 15 minutes before a blood sugar measurement would be taken. Not to say I would not gladly volunteer for such a test but you can see why such a test might not be practical.
First off, why would you pick a low carb beer when your trying to measure the insulin response of beer in general? Doesn't it make sense to drink 5 bottles of the normal beer? Not like beer is an essential component of a healthy diet anyways.
You don't have to follow every diet to the letter. As long as most of the information your getting in the book is correct, you should be ok. If there are innaccuracies you can work around them.
"First off, why would you pick a low carb beer when your trying to measure the insulin response of beer in general? "
Well first off the Glycemic Index (G.I.) measure is how quickly and high a particular carbohydrate raises blood sugar levels, not insulin levels.
Second, if someone was consuming low carb beer, which very likely might be someone who is on a low carb diet, they might well be interested in the G.I. of what they were consuming, don't you think?
Personally I think beer, in moderation, has a lot more pluses than minuses going for it and there are plenty of studies to back me up. When an author of a diet book prohibits a particular, and possibly a beneficial substance, based on a faulty premise I don't think I'm out of line calling it to people's attention.
To quote from the book, "And beer, of course, is nobody's idea of a diet drink. Maltose, the sugar in beer, has a higher glycemic index than white bread. The insulin response to it leads to fat storage in the abdomen that we call, quite accurately, the beer belly." This is, quite accurately, total bullshit. Where fat is deposited on your body is determined by genetics, not by what you eat. And how much fat you store is determined by your excess calories, from any source. Add to this the fact that as I said earlier, beer has almost no sugar in it, maltose or otherwise.
If you get something out of the book, fine, and I agree with your last paragraph entirely. On the other hand, I think people should be aware of what the inaccuracies in the diet are so they can make an informed decision about whether it is right for them or not.
thanks, bringiton and everyone else who've given good info.
I don't drink much alchohol because of medication so it's not a problem, but it is interesting to hear where there are inaccuracies.
do you have any links to particularly good reviews?