South Beach Diet
 

This seems to be the hot new thing in dieting. The author is Dr. Arthur Agatston. It's essentially low-carb, but I have some serious problems with it. It's anti-saturated fat. It makes claims about sat-fat's causing heart problems, which the major studies do not substantiate. (See The Cholesterol Myths.) Second, it makes the completely unexplained statement that all the doctors over 40 that the author (a cardiologist) knows are on statin (anticholesterol) drugs--even those with "normal" cholesterol. Why? The author doesn't respect his readers enough to tell them why. (Why would people with normal cholesterol need a cholesterol-lowering drug? Perhaps it's because it's not cholesterol that is the problem.)

Finally, he misstates Atkins egregiously. While he claim to admire Atkins, he objects that this way of eating eliminates "virtually all" carbohydrates and recommends "limitless" saturated fats.

If Agatston gets something so wrong that I have first-hand knowledge of, how can I trust him on those things that I don't know?

Sounds like the guy is trying to cash in on the new low-carb interest by winning over everyone who has been indoctrinated against saturated fat. And I don't trust "diets" named after places.

Sheldon

I have to agree Sheldon, that he is using the interest in low carb to get people to buy his book. And he does say in the first chapter that South Beach "is NOT a low carb diet". Only the first 2 weeks are 'sort of' low carb.

I agree with Sheldon also. I read about SB in Prevention Magazine and decided that he basically stole Dr. Atkins idea and tweaked it to make it more main stream acceptable ( i.e. the anti sat fat position). I'll just stick with Atkins through the various stages and use Atkins for Life to guide me when I've reached my goal.

There has been so much hype about that "diet" lately that I bought the book last week (I guess I felt I had too much money at that time and needed to throw some away) and was very disappointed.

To me the whole thing would be too hard to follow for the first 2 weeks let alone the rest of my life. Atkins is the one for me because it fits into my lifestyle very well and most of all it works!!

If you use the search function and search this and the atkins diet forum, I think you'll find quite a few discussions about this diet.

I admit I fell for it. The amount of sat fat always scared me...so South beach seemed like the answer....I was hungry. Not enough fat to satisfy me. And I love Atkins for all the choices you have for low carb products. I need those!!

Have a great day!
Natascha

Agatston is trying to be all things to all people. He claims his diet is neither low-fat nor low-carb. Yet it is a controlled-carb and a controlled-fat diet. He permits only "good" carbs (fruits, vegetable, and whole grains--how revolutionary) and "good" fats. But he does prescribe a "cut" in carbs. Listen: "To make up for the overall cut in carbohydrates, my diet permitted ample fats and animal proteins." Here's where he smears Atkins. Agatston lets you eat "good" carbs "in marked contrast to the Atkins Diet, for instance, which ban virtualy all carbohydrates and leaves the dieter to exist mostly on proteins. That regimen also permits limitless saturated fats, the kind found in red meat and butter. These are, as most people know [sic], the bad fats..." (p. 10). Most people don't know this. They have been told it over and over, but that is not the same thing as knowing it.

The gross and irresponsible misstatement of Atkins is enough to discredit the book, in my view.

Now look what he says about fat 10 pages later: "When people eat high-fiber carbs such as vegetables and unprocessed grains and flour, the danger of most dietary fat becomes minimal. Only saturated fat remains a predictor of heart attacks, and even then not a very impressive one."

Huh? Saturated fat is a predictor of heart attacks, but an unimpressive one? That's like saying I'm a predictor of the stock market, but not a very impressive one. What good would that be? Here's a subtle concession to the pro-sat-fat camp.

He goes on to point out that the fall in the consumption of saturated fats over the years has brought a fall in HDL and a rise in triglycerides.

So is he pro or anti sat-fat? He's like an ink blot. You can see what you want to see. Good strategy if your main goal is to write a bestseller. And he has.

You can skip this book, unless you like the recipes.

Sheldon

Have any of you read "The GI Revolution" books? I think he combined their information with Dr. Atkins and calls it his own. As soon as I heard about Agatston's diet, I recognized the information because I was reading the low GI books and Dr. Atkins' books at the same time. I'm sure the Drs. in Australia are "surprised" by the dear doctor's supposed discoveries since they've been studying this for over ten years and Dr. Atkins has been helping people lose weight much longer. I suppose there'll always be someone willing to take someone else's great idea and try to change it and sell it as their own.

I bought the book because of the hype .. not so much because I wanted to follow the program, but I wanted to see for myself if this diet was anything like Atkins, which the mythology (and the media) seem to be promulgating. Big disappointment .. since I paid $34.95 Cdn. There are no references provided for what little information there is, and no resources offered for further reading. The science presented re - saturated fats is skewed ... it's based on what happens when insulin levels are high, and carb intake is high as well.

Plugging the menus as written into Fitday, and using the amount of fat in recipes as a per meal guideline ... the calories average 1100 per day during the first 2-week phase 1, then 1200 per day during the 2nd phase, which is to be followed for the entire weight loss period.

I fail to see how the diet will help persons who have genuine carb and sweet addictions, since right from the beginning artificially sweetened candies, diet sodas, chocolate, fudgesicles and the like are permitted.


re - the recipes. I wish they didn't use so much non-fat non-stick spray and fat-free egg substitutes.


Doreen

I picked up a copy of Prevention, read the first line of the story, calling South Beach "Atkins for HEALTHY people"..and knew right where the article was heading....

Pardon my French, but half-assed comparisons and misstatement of fact for sensational value (limitless red meat and bacon...) has convinced me never to but this magazine again!

Prevention magazine and prevention.com are owned by the publisher of South Beach Diet. More info. can be found here.

:read2:


Doreen

I agree with the general sentiment of this thread. Sell your copies on Ebay! This is what I do when I figure out I just wasted my hard-earned cash.

Gosh, I am REALLY glad to see this thread. I bought the book yesterday at the airport because SO MANY people I know are on it. I was thinking of moving over to the South Beach diet because it seemed more balanced - move veggies, some fruits, brown rice, whole wheat bread. I have essentially been on induction for 2 1/2 months and missing those things. Also, I am only loosing about a pound a week. I am getting impatient and would like to loose 2 lbs a week and thought this book might help. South Beach essentially lowers calories and does some low carb stuff, so that is how people loose - not rocket science. ALso, I don't think one looses any faster on South Beach. It makes sense to pay attention to calories and saturated fat as well as carbs, but not to the point of feeling hungry.

Sell my copy on ebay. Now there's a thought!

And Prevention's publisher did the South Beach book - hmmmm.

I've never liked Prevention magazine. :thdown: Their headlines are always touting the latest "miracle", and it's rarely news. Yawn. They're definitely toward the "tabloid" end of the health magazine spectrum, IMHO.

This is a great post. I read South Beach Diet book to glean what I could from it, but IMO, it is a false testiment.
Sheldon your first post summarized exactly the way I feel about SBD and the doctor who wrote it.
And to this day, everybody is always accusing this or that of being a bad fat...like, what makes a natrual food a bad fat really? fat is neutral and as we all know, it promotes the burning of fat.
The only fats that are bad are artificial ones to me. The hydronated oils and substitute butters. I find it hard to swallow after Dr. Atkins book alone shed so much insigh into nutrition that the fat from creme cheese is bad for you, or that too many eggs can raise your cholesterol.
Or that eating hormone-free beef or steak can raise your risk for heart problems.
Those mainstream magazines like Fitness and Prevention are very propoganda-esque. They cling to the old food pyramid, with the exception of telling us sugar is bad for us. Although, they do tell us to eat things like low-fat yogurt albeit the fact it has enough sugar in it to kill my cat if she were to eat it. I personally do not beleive the South Beach diet is healthy since you are not getting enough cholesterol to support your tissue repair and ultimately, lack of fat causes your body to retain it whilst lack of cholesterol causes your body to horde that as well.