Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:48, 17 April 2015

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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. Food and drink Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Brands This 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This 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 Low This 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.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. WWB Too (talk · contribs)

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.

{{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:

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.

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.

• 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 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)

Good to hear it, Doc James. I was hoping a few others would respond as well but, since they haven't, I'd like to begin working on specific language to remedy these issues. If Alexbrn, Jytdog, LaMona, or others have any additional thoughts about the above, I invite them to contribute.

To start, I'd like to focus on the History section. I've put together a new draft that's much more compact than previous efforts, and succinctly describes in successive paragraphs: diet's conception and rise to popularity; the main South Beach Diet publications; and the acquisition of the brand in 2011. The two sentences currently in the article are included, though I removed 2003 as the year the diet was developed. (Here's why: The first book was published in April 2003 so, logically, the diet would have been developedearlier than that. In fact, sources exist statin it was developed in the 1990s. I didn't replace 2003 with another year, however, as the the Mayo Clinic article is a stronger source than the ones I have, such as this People article which says 1996. Here is the new text I am proposing:

History

The South Beach Diet was developed by preventive cardiologist Dr. Arthur Agatston with Marie Almon, the former chief dietitian at Mount Sinai Medical Center. 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 planned for Agatston's own patients to reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes, but its perception as a method of weight loss boosted its popularity, driven by the distribution of photocopied diet plans and local media reports. In 2004, former President Bill Clinton stated that he had lost 35 pounds by following the South Beach Diet.

The first book describing the diet, The South Beach Diet, was written by Agatston and was released in April 2003. The book held the number one spot on The New York Times Best Seller list for 37 weeks that year. A series of books followed, including The South Beach Diet Supercharged, an expanded version of the original diet plan, written with Joseph Signorile published in 2008, and The South Beach Diet Gluten Solution written with Dr. Natalie Geary published in 2013.

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. Mayo Clinic Staff (June 5, 2014). "South Beach Diet". Mayo Clinic. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
3. ^ Abby Goodnough (October 7, 2003). "New Doctor, New Diet, But Still No Cookies". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
4. "Diet Wars - Interview With Author Agatston, Author of the South Beach Diet". Frontline. August 8, 2004. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
5. Frank Franklin (January 15, 2004). "Bill Clinton loses weight, touts exercise and South Beach Diet". USA Today. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
6. 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.
7. Susan Yara (March 8, 2006). "Ten Diets That Work". Forbes. Retrieved 11 June 2014.
8. "The South Beach Diet Supercharged: Faster Weight Loss and Better Health for Life". Publishers Weekly. April 21, 2008. Retrieved 10 November 2014.
9. Elizabeth De Armas (April 2, 2013). "Dr. Agatston of 'South Beach Diet' tackles gluten in new book". The Miami Herald. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
10. Ina Paiva Cordle (August 1, 2011). "South Beach Diet has new owner". The Miami Herald. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
11. "MidOcean Heads for South Beach". peHub. August 1, 2011. Retrieved 24 July 2014.
12. "Company Overview of South Beach Diet Trademark Limited Partnership". investing.businessweek.com. Bloomberg. Retrieved 30 July 2014.

Please let me know what you think. I am happy to revise based on feedback or provide reasoning for what I've included. If there are no issues with the wording, sources or details, I hope an unconflicted editor will move this into the live article. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I find the "with the assistance of..." to be unfortunate language, since sources I have seen indicate that the two worked together on the diet, not as "X and assistant." A simple "and" would be fine. And I'm fine with the rest EXCEPT the mention of Bill Clinton which is absolutely irrelevant, but positively promotional. We do not know the circumstances under which he undertook the diet - my guess is that he didn't just buy the book and go it alone but did it under medical supervision, along with who knows what other changes in life style and medications. Citing his success, while not mentioning any failures, is not NPOV. LaMona (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah and Clinton "revealed" !? talk about poorly-sourced POV. As a general observation this is what happens when we get paid advocates trying to turn Misplaced Pages articles into adverts for their clients: shit content. Alexbrn 19:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with making some adjustments. I actually meant to change the first sentence to say "and" or "with", but "with the assistance of" somehow crept back in. I included the sentence about Bill Clinton because it was a major point in the diet's popularity; how about changing this to "stated"? (It is not poorly sourced—my citations are to USA Today and The Telegraph.) I appreciate the quick feedback and hope that we can move forward with those two changes implemented.

Finally, I thought twice about including this, but here goes: I do not much appreciate having my good faith suggestions labeled "shit content". I am aiming to write NPOV as much as anyone, but no one editor can get it right all by themselves. That's why these kinds of conversations are useful, and I hope we can keep it civil. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have in fact made these changes above: each now reads "with Marie Almon" and "Bill Clinton stated". WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You have edited my comment so it makes no sense. Please put this back to a sensible shape. Alexbrn 19:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. I was using Ctrl-F to replace it in the markup above, only I found the wrong one and failed to notice. Fixed now. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I still object to including Clinton in this at all. It is a single example that is not representative, and exists only to promote the diet. Thousands of people have been on this diet, under a wide range of uncontrolled circumstances, with various levels of success. Naming a single person's success just isn't appropriate. Now, if there were some study that gave percentages of numbers of people who lost/didn't lose and what their health is 5 years later, THAT would be relevant. From my reading, though, scientifically valid studies of that nature do not exist. LaMona (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

LaMona, this part of the article is not about judging the diet's effectiveness. The intention here is to give some idea about the media attention it received. What would you say to removing his claim of success, and simply noting that Bill Clinton was one who tried it? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

WWB Too It isn't a matter of effectiveness. The issue is that it makes no difference in terms of the history of the diet that Bill Clinton went on it, or claimed to. That's one, exactly one, person, and there is no point to the statement. This is a clear case of "celebrity endorsement" (albeit he's not in on it) -- which is to make people think your product is better because some known person is associated with it. Citing a famous individual as associated with your product merely because they used it or claim to have used it can have no purpose but promotion. LaMona (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

LaMona, as much as you don't don't like it, it is a fact, and a well documented one, that Clinton was on the South Beach Diet. Heck the NY Times has mentioned that (one, two, three, four, five) times. In my view, there is no basis in policy or guideline for keeping that out of Misplaced Pages. Jytdog (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROMOTION point #5 + Testimonial. It's policy, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT LaMona (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

content stating the simple fact that Clinto was on the diet, as WWB Too proposed above, is writing in an "objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." With respect to the requirement there for independent sources, that is well met. There is no basis there, to reject the simple statement of fact. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

you just added a link to the article on Testimonial. That is not policy, that is just an article. Please respond to the substance; I don't see how a well-supported statement of fact fails PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Testimonial speaks to the promotional meaning of WP:PROMOTION point #5, the latter which is policy. Using Clinton's name is like using a celebrity testimonial. If adding Clinton's name is ok, then in theory you can add any name there, including someone famous for the wrong reasons. If adding the name of someone infamous is not ok, then why is adding the name of someone famous ok? What's the point? I say that the point is to connect Clinton's name with the product such that some of his positive fame "rubs off" on the product. That is what celebrity testimonials is all about. Thus the link that I provided by way of explanation. LaMona (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

you are not dealing with what WP:PROMO actually says. I responded to what it actually says above, as does alexbrn below. 01:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It says: "5. Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." I consider the inclusion of Clinton to be precisely "puffery." YMMV, but that is what I am saying. LaMona (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

for pete's sake. Puffery adds subjective language, and would be something like: "The esteemed former President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, famed for bingeing on fried foods, embraced the South Beach Diet with his whole heart and lost an amazing 35 pounds in an astonishingly brief amount of time yet was able to retain and even increase his well-known joie de vivre." A simple factual statement like: "Former US President Bill Clinton was on the South Beach Diet in 2004." cited to the NY Times, is not puffery as that term is used in WP. You really have no leg to stand on, and so far have no support for your position.Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I have stated my views as neutrally as possible, and resent the "You really have no leg to stand on..." type of reply. This is a discussion, not a contest -- the goal is not to try to crush each other. We can agree to disagree, but please be more civil and less combative. LaMona (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that I seem rude. You taking a strong stand that has very very weak basis in policy and guidelines. I don't mind when people argue for their preferences as long as they are clear on that. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This reminds me of what a friend once said: "The rules are vague, but everyone applies them rigorously." There is room for interpretation, otherwise editing WP could be done by machines. LaMona (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn and Doc James, what are your thoughts on policy issues with regard to including a statement that Bill Clinton was on the diet? thx. as mentioned i think there is no basis in policy for keeping it out. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it could be okay to mention it, but not to state or imply any consequent health effect. Alexbrn 22:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback from everyone. I know there is still ongoing discussion above about the Bill Clinton sentence, but it appears there is general support for the proposed expanded History section, and some support as well for something along the lines of "In 2004, former President Bill Clinton stated that he was following the South Beach Diet" being included. If I edit my proposed draft with that statement and source it with this New York Times article that Jytdog linked to, do other editors think we're ready to move forward with placing it in the live article, or should we seek further comment? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Caldwell_Esselstyn indicates that Clinton later became a vegan. What other diets has he followed? LeadSongDog come howl! 01:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi LeadSongDog, based on news articles I've read Clinton has flirted with veganism, but that would be a discussion for an article about him. I've had a heck of a time trying to find consensus on what seems like it shouldn't be too controversial an addition. Would you mind looking at the proposed expansion (most recent one listed above) and share your thoughts? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The introduction

The opening section of a Misplaced Pages article should be sufficient to be a stand-alone summary of the content of the article. I made some edits to bring more of the article's information to the opening section, but these were very quickly removed. Let me explain why this is an important aspect of the WP style: increasingly, other data sources are transcluding or including (via linking) the introductory paragraphs as data enhancement within their systems. In particular, I work with libraries, specifically public libraries, whose metadata often does not help their users understand the content of a resource or subject heading. Misplaced Pages has great potential to be the enhancement that they need to serve their users better by providing actual explanatory text related to the brief entries in the library catalog. The introduction should be a brief "surrogate" for the article, giving enough information that the topic of the article is clear.

As an article on a popular topic, the introduction to this article should be something that would give an average reader, with no prior knowledge of the diet but who has retrieved basic information on the book, a context and brief information about the diet. It could include the name of one or two of the books, that the diet uses phases, and the types of foods it does and does not permit. It could include the intention that the diet be "heart healthy" although that is not proven. Think of it as the opening paragraph of a news article, that introduces the longer article that will follow. Please see WP:LEAD.

I would make additional edits that I think would be helpful to such a reader, using information further down in the article, but there seem to be editors who will not allow good-faith edits to stand.

I encourage editors to think not only of the message that they wish to get across, but of the users of the encyclopedia, and the varied uses that are made of introductions, infoboxes, etc. LaMona (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It was I who edited your changes. I fixed a typo and tightened the wording while keeping the substantive meaning - except about the diets "continued popularity" which seems undue/doubtful stated that way. Please don't swerve into discussing editors, it's disruptive. Please WP:FOC. Alexbrn 04:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You waste my time. I'll go somewhere else. LaMona (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Supposed "vegetarian version" of the 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, folks. I'd like to see if we can switch focus here briefly to something that I hope will prove to be an uncontroversial change. The final sentence of the Difference from other low-carb diets section currently states that there is a vegetarian variation of the South Beach Diet. By juxtaposition with a quote from Dr. Agatston in the previous sentence, this implies that Agatston was involved with creating a vegetarian version of the diet. This is not so. The source for the statement is an unofficial website discussing what foods a vegetarian adaptation might include; this is one person's interpretation. In addition, I rather doubt this website would be considered reliable in any case. Would another editor watching this page be willing to remove this sentence from the section? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Yes this was poorly-sourced. Alexbrn 19:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you kindly. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the introduction and history section be expanded?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Withdrawn by requestor as nature of dispute appears to be rather narrower than this RfC contemplated. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeking considered views from additional editors about whether to expand the History section following the suggested language which can be found here, and whether to rewrite and expand the introduction following the suggested language which can be found here. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment from requesting editor—Anyone newly arrived to this discussion should be aware that I have a financial conflict of interest with this topic: the South Beach Diet brand has retained my assistance with seeking improvements to this article. As a veteran editor, I follow Jimbo's "Bright Line" advisory and will refrain from making any direct edits to this article. In August I proposed a complete rewrite; responding editors asked me to break it down section by section, and so I did. However, as the existence of this RfC attests, I failed to find consensus for even these changes. A few participating editors have been rather grumpy, while a few more agreeable ones haven't stayed long, and I'm afraid that the result is this article remains rather shabby. It probably goes without saying that I am confident my suggestions are right on policy (and at least close on content) and would make it a better Misplaced Pages article. Not just for the benefit of South Beach Diet but for the benefit of Misplaced Pages, this can and should be a better developed, more informative article. I hope we can restart this process by finding agreement on the introduction and history sections. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I thought a strong consensus had already been established against attributing Bill Clinton's reported weight loss to him reportedly taking this diet, without proper medical sourcing. That is still in the proposed text? Alexbrn 22:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I believed we were very close to agreeing on a version that included mention of Bill Clinton publicly stating he was on the diet (which apparently the New York Times mentioned a dozen times) without attributing any specific weight loss to the diet plan. Perhaps I should re-include the latest versions of each section for closer consideration. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 01:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

We mention Clinton that way already (I added it). It's not clear precisely what changes this RfC is asking for. Alexbrn 06:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

True, and that's appreciated. However I had proposed a version of the History section, linked above, that included more context for the diet's history. That hasn't been included, although there seemed to be consensus for that before. Additionally, the introduction is at issue. I'd like to see more information included, again similar to what I linked in my initial RfC post. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 11:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. While the lede could do with being beefed-up, the proposed re-write removes any mainstream independent assessment - which is rather dismissive of this fad diet. This risks appearing as a kind of watering-down and damages neutrality. As discussed above, the proposed history section re-write introduces poorly-sourced health claims about Clinton's weight loss, which is a no-no. More generally I feel neutral-to-cool about the brand information proposed for this section, as although while I can see this may be of interest to the people paying to try and get this page changed, I am not entirely convinced that general readers will value the details of this diet's brand fished from obscure sources; perhaps (WP:NOTEVERYTHING) this is just too much detail. Alexbrn 12:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, you and I do not agree on a few key points, which is partly why I've sought to open this up as an RfC. I am not convinced that the introduction needs to take a position on the diet—that seems more POV to me, especially use of the term "fad diet" based on your interpretation (perhaps rising to WP:SYNTHESIS) of sources. Meanwhile, the version of the History section I now support makes no claim as to Bill Clinton's results, merely that he spoke publicly of being on the diet. Likewise, I must respectfully dispute your assertion that the sources I have presented are altogether "obscure" or fishing; I am quite certain that any source I have proposed would meet the requirements of WP:RELIABLE. Tomorrow I intend to post the latest versions of my proposed updates for a clarified discussion. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 05:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

How can "fad diet" be "my interpretation" or "synthesis" when it is directly sourced? It's the diet's main claim to fame in the serious medical literature; missing it out would violate neutrality. We can't really run an RfC on a version of the text which exists in your head only, or which keeps changing. My opposition is based on the actual text you linked to which waters down criticism of the diet and introduces a poorly-sourced health claim. Alexbrn 06:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Once again, it's well-established that you and I have disagreed on this topic. This is largely why I've opened up the RfC, and I am disappointed that no one else has joined the discussion yet. However, I remain optimistic that a consensus can be obtained here. We have two debates—about "fad diet" and what the lede should say + what to include in the History section—so I'll take them in order:

Introduction

• We certainly disagree about whether "fad diet" is a straightforward descriptor or a contentious label. I maintain it is the latter. The article currently cites a nutrition book that uses the word "fad diet" and "South Beach Diet" in the same section but, at best, only insinuates it is a fad diet, rather than stating so clearly. In fact, the phrase "South Beach Diet" only appears twice in these pages, the second time in a table where it is more clearly labeled a "popular diet". You have also cited a Harvard Health Letter paper which uses "Diet Fads" as a MeSH tag (along with "Florida" and "Humans") in relation to a discussion of South Beach Diet. I am quite certain this is meant to indicate that the South Beach Diet had a run of popular attention in the media, not that it is a "fad diet" in the sense of Food faddism—which is currently linked in the first sentence of this article. More to the point, the South Beach Diet is not even a "fad diet" in the sense that the term means: it doesn't promise fast weight-loss without a long-term maintenance plan, it is not based on eliminating or consuming a particular kind of food, etc. Meanwhile, a straight-up search of PubMed for "South Beach Diet" + "fad diet" returns precisely zero results. Yes, I believe your usage of the term "fad diet" represents an unacceptable synthesis of sources to make a point not found in any of them.

For anyone else joining the conversation, here is what the intro looks like right now:

The South Beach Diet is a low-carbohydrate fad diet developed by Arthur Agatston in a best-selling 2003 book.

References

1. DeBruyne L, Pinna K, Whitney E (2011). Chapter 7: Nutrition in practice — fad diets (8th ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 209. ISBN 1-133-71550-8. 'a fad diet by any other name would still be a fad diet.' And the names are legion: the Atkins Diet, the Cheater's Diet, the South Beach Diet, the Zone Diet. Year after year, 'new and improved' diets appear ... {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
2. ^ Goff SL, Foody JM, Inzucchi S, Katz D, Mayne ST, Krumholz HM (July 2006). "BRIEF REPORT: nutrition and weight loss information in a popular diet book: is it fact, fiction, or something in between?". J Gen Intern Med. 21 (7): 769–74. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00501.x. PMC 1924692. PMID 16808780.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. "Sizing up South Beach. It makes some good points, but The South Beach Diet has problems typical of diet books: lack of proof and some dubious claims". Harv Health Lett. 29 (1): 5. November 2003. PMID 14633496.

In the interest of seeking compromise, I've decided to add the critical second sentence of the current introduction. Indeed, none of my arguments are meant to say that the diet is above criticism, only that it must be fairly presented. Note also that my introduction omits most citations (currently only including ones in the sentence I have copied over) following WP:CITELEAD:

The South Beach Diet is a diet plan created in the mid-1990s by preventive cardiologist Dr. Arthur Agatston with the assistance of registered dietitian Marie Almon. The diet is intended to promote weight loss and a healthy lifestyle through a sustainable approach to eating. The diet emphasizes eating high-fiber, low-glycemic carbohydrates, unsaturated fats, and lean protein, and categorizes carbohydrates and fats as good or bad. The South Beach Diet has some elements which are generally recognized as sound, but also promises benefits not backed by supporting evidence. The diet was originally described in the book The South Beach Diet. Twelve subsequent books have been published, and there is also a retail line of South Beach Diet foods.

References

1. Goff SL, Foody JM, Inzucchi S, Katz D, Mayne ST, Krumholz HM (July 2006). "BRIEF REPORT: nutrition and weight loss information in a popular diet book: is it fact, fiction, or something in between?". J Gen Intern Med. 21 (7): 769–74. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00501.x. PMC 1924692. PMID 16808780.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
2. "Sizing up South Beach. It makes some good points, but The South Beach Diet has problems typical of diet books: lack of proof and some dubious claims". Harv Health Lett. 29 (1): 5. November 2003. PMID 14633496.

I hope you'll agree to this version being closer to the intention of WP:LEAD, Alexbrn—as I hope others will, too.

History section

• Second, let's turn to the History section. And I'll concede an unforced error on my part in my original link: I thought what I had linked to a version trimming down the Bill Clinton anecdote. I will correct this below. First, here's what the current section looks like right now:

The South Beach Diet was developed in 2003 by Arthur Agatston. 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.

In 2004, the former US President Bill Clinton was reported as being on the diet.

References

1. "South Beach Diet". Mayo Clinic. Retrieved 23 September 2014.
2. Alex Witchel (April 14, 2004). "Doctor Wants 'South Beach' To Mean Hearts, Not Bikinis". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
3. Goodnough, Abby (October 7, 2003). "New Doctor, New Diet, but Still No Cookies". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 23 September 2014.
4. 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.

And here's what I propose—as noted above, the only part of this contested in previous conversation was the Clinton detail. Now that this is resolved, I hope we can find consensus for this considerably more informative treatment of the diet's history, including more recent developments:

The South Beach Diet was developed by preventive cardiologist Dr. Arthur Agatston with Marie Almon, the former chief dietitian at Mount Sinai Medical Center. 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 planned for Agatston's own patients to reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes, but its perception as a method of weight loss boosted its popularity, driven by the distribution of photocopied diet plans and local media reports. In 2004, the former US President Bill Clinton was reported as being on the diet.

The first book describing the diet, The South Beach Diet, was written by Agatston and was released in April 2003. The book held the number one spot on The New York Times Best Seller list for 37 weeks that year. A series of books followed, including The South Beach Diet Supercharged, an expanded version of the original diet plan, written with Joseph Signorile published in 2008, and The South Beach Diet Gluten Solution written with Dr. Natalie Geary published in 2013.

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. Mayo Clinic Staff (June 5, 2014). "South Beach Diet". Mayo Clinic. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
3. ^ Abby Goodnough (October 7, 2003). "New Doctor, New Diet, But Still No Cookies". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
4. "Diet Wars - Interview With Author Agatston, Author of the South Beach Diet". Frontline. August 8, 2004. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
5. Frank Franklin (January 15, 2004). "Bill Clinton loses weight, touts exercise and South Beach Diet". USA Today. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
6. 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.
7. Susan Yara (March 8, 2006). "Ten Diets That Work". Forbes. Retrieved 11 June 2014.
8. "The South Beach Diet Supercharged: Faster Weight Loss and Better Health for Life". Publishers Weekly. April 21, 2008. Retrieved 10 November 2014.
9. Elizabeth De Armas (April 2, 2013). "Dr. Agatston of 'South Beach Diet' tackles gluten in new book". The Miami Herald. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
10. Ina Paiva Cordle (August 1, 2011). "South Beach Diet has new owner". The Miami Herald. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
11. "MidOcean Heads for South Beach". peHub. August 1, 2011. Retrieved 24 July 2014.
12. "Company Overview of South Beach Diet Trademark Limited Partnership". investing.businessweek.com. Bloomberg. Retrieved 30 July 2014.

These are my specific proposals, and I think they would improve this entry significantly. I hope this will make it easier for others to consider my proposed changes, and see for themselves how it would benefit readers looking for information about this topic. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. To repeat, my main problem is that you've removed the mainstream view of this fad diet (and yes, this term is properly sourced from a well-established nutrition text book, compliant with WP:MEDRS) from the lede. In general mainstream science/medicine is rather dismissive of this dietary product, and not saying so clearly and prominently is a basic violation of neutrality. I'm sure the South Beach people who are paying you to modify this article would prefer that their products' dubious nature be suppressed, but we should resist promotional POV-pushing, even if it is by proxy. Alexbrn 17:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I've responded with a move toward compromise (in no way am I attempting to "suppress" any legitimate criticism) and a clear explanation of my position rooted in a consideration of sources and guidelines. Your latest reply doesn't even attempt to grapple with that; instead this is "proof by repeated assertion". Meanwhile, it would be more correct to say that mainstream medicine is ambivalent toward the South Beach Diet, not dismissive. (It's also not a "product".)

I have been nothing but polite to you, while you've continued being rude. Although I am trying to maintain a discussion based on assuming good faith, since you have accused me of POV-pushing, I'll have to make this counter-observation: I am looking for a broad solution in two sections, while you're objecting to a single phrase in one of them. It seems to me that you're just being an obstructionist, and I believe editors not previously involved in this discussion will come to see that. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't question your good faith, but your judgement. How can you presume to assess whether you're POV pushing if you're hobbled by a COI? Since from good RS this diet seems to be a canonical example of one of the legion oversold, under-delivering fad diets that have comes our way over the years, we need to relay that mainstream view to have a properly neutral article. As MEDRS wisely puts it: "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge" - yet you're proposing to airbrush current medical knowledge out of the article's lede, mentioning instead how it intends to "promote weight loss and a healthy lifestyle". If you can't see that's a problem, then I really wonder ... Alexbrn 18:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that my acknowledged professional relationship with the South Beach Diet brand renders me completely unqualified even to offer suggestions about how information should be represented in this entry. That's pretty much the opposite of what WP:COIADVICE says. In particular, you're avoiding the fact that I have offered a pretty compelling explanation (my un-indented post immediately above, diff here) for why the phrase "fad diet" is a big stretch as well as to ignore the rest of my fairly straightforward suggestions. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that you're trying to find a compromise. And that's why I've brought this to RfC. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The objective is not compromise, it's ultimately to have a good article. As an example of your argument being partial, look at how you are still referring to the "fad diet" categorisation being a "stretch" or "synthesis" even after a good source has been provided listing it as a canonical example of such (and there are more sources if necessary). You'd have Misplaced Pages ignore on-point RS and instead have bland wording about supposed health benefits. You even refer to your own argument as "compelling", which should surely give pause and prompt some introspection. Alexbrn 19:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course the goal is a better article, about which there must be WP:CONSENSUS, which is found "by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Misplaced Pages policies". I've suggested a fair bit of content that expands the article in a neutral, encyclopedic way, and you are objecting to only one small part of it. That is certainly keeping this from becoming a better article. And about your reference to "health benefits": one can't introduce its properly without stating the diet's methods and aims. If you have a specific objection or counter-suggestion, I haven't heard it.

As for "fad diet"—let's go look for some sources. As I mentioned before, a PubMed search for "south beach diet" and "fad diet" yields nothing at all. A Google search yields a plethora of non-RS links, a WebMD overview that explains the diet without using the phrase, and then the same nutrition book I've already pointed out spends very little time on SBD and uses the phrase "popular diet" interchangeably. Could "fad diet" appear somewhere in the article? OK, that's a compromise I can make. Is the lead section a whitewash without it? Of course not. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Or see this for example. We should also be mentioning the multi-billion dollar industry perhaps? Alexbrn 20:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course I am aware that the term "fad diet" is sometimes used in reference to a set of diet plans of which SBD is one. However, considering the usage as I did above, putting it in the first clause of the whole article gives it a prominence that isn't really warranted, and is a POV problem. As I concluded in my last reply, I wouldn't necessarily oppose a sentence in the body of the article such as "South Beach Diet is sometimes considered a fad diet"—with one or both of these books as a source. After all, using an "in-text attribution" is how WP:LABEL suggests dealing with "value-laden" terms. If that's a concession necessary to for the rest of this to go ahead, so be it. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's an obvious categorisation, which is why it is a MeSH term for this topic. We should start with the obvious/independent/neutral and only then move to more detailed, while avoiding promotional stuff. That is my chief concern. The term "fad diet" must appear in the lede, as must the mainstream view that this diet over-promises benefits without supporting evidence. Anything else would veer us towards doing SBD's advertising for them. Alexbrn 20:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I count two PubMed sources about South Beach Diet including the "Diet Fads" MeSH tag out of eight total sources mentioning SBD in their abstracts. Meanwhile, the specific combination of "south beach diet" + "fad diet" appears in zero results. Your insistence on the primacy of this one phrase is WP:CHERRYPICKING.

Looking at discussion of "fad diets", this PubMed source makes an interesting point: "Use of the term 'fad diet' reflects the contentious nature of the debate in the treatment of diabetes and generally targets diets based on carbohydrate restriction..." Clearly, it's a contentious WP:LABEL and one that should be used very carefully. The current article does not reflect this guideline, whereas my suggested compromise would. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Basically the proposed changes include a lot of potentially useful content, but at the price of much of that content having a POV slant favoring the diet. For example, there is a large emphasis on how many books have been written about the diet and how popular they are. Likewise, the proposed intro paragraph de-emphasizes the statement on the effectiveness of the diet, even if that's not the intention.

So yeah, if it's a strict support or oppose, I would oppose, but that doesn't mean that the information couldn't eventually be worked in to the article once reworked. Sunrise (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear that you think some of it might be useful, Sunrise, however I'm surprised to hear you think the diet's publication history is over-emphasized. After all, the reason most anyone knows about the diet is because of the best-selling book series. As I mentioned in a related discussion this morning, I strongly support the goal of keeping woo and pseudo-science off Misplaced Pages, but I'm afraid this has become an overcorrection in the opposite direction: that a dispassionate treatment of the topic is effectively a "POV slant favoring the diet". Anyway, if you are willing to help rework some of this material for inclusion in the entry, I'd appreciate it. Because of my COI I have recused myself from direct edits on this topic. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Reworked introduction

In my previous request, User:Sunrise supported some of the material in my proposed introduction paragraph, but suggested it be reworked. I've done so below. I took into account the critique that my last draft (unintentionally) "de-emphasize the statement on the effectiveness of the diet" and moved that statement to immediately follow the description of the diet. I've also pared down the information to just the most salient pieces. I've also retained the "fad" term, though I've presented it with a bit more context. Here's what I'd suggest:

The South Beach Diet is a diet which emphasizes eating high-fiber, low-glycemic carbohydrates, unsaturated fats, and lean protein, and categorizes carbohydrates and fats as good or bad. The South Beach Diet has some elements which are generally recognized as sound, but also promises benefits not backed by supporting evidence.

References

1. Abby Goodnough (October 7, 2003). "New Doctor, New Diet, But Still No Cookies". The New York Times.
2. ^ Goff SL, Foody JM, Inzucchi S, Katz D, Mayne ST, Krumholz HM (July 2006). "BRIEF REPORT: nutrition and weight loss information in a popular diet book: is it fact, fiction, or something in between?". J Gen Intern Med. 21 (7): 769–74. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00501.x. PMC 1924692. PMID 16808780.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. "Sizing up South Beach. It makes some good points, but The South Beach Diet has problems typical of diet books: lack of proof and some dubious claims". Harv Health Lett. 29 (1): 5. November 2003. PMID 14633496.
4. DeBruyne L, Pinna K, Whitney E (2011). Chapter 7: Nutrition in practice — fad diets (8th ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 209. ISBN 1-133-71550-8. 'a fad diet by any other name would still be a fad diet.' And the names are legion: the Atkins Diet, the Cheater's Diet, the South Beach Diet, the Zone Diet. Year after year, 'new and improved' diets appear ... {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I am fairly confident that this new proposal addresses all the issues editors found with previous versions. For anyone involved before, what do you think of this version? I also hope this discussion receives input from others interested in this topic broadly, but who may have not taken interest previously, to comment with a fresh perspective. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 02:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It didn't "become a fad" but is intrinsically a fad diet (and not just in the US). Would be a tad non-neutral to have your proposed wording. We should also mention, again for neutrality, that the diet is in part based on "incorrect and misleading information". Then we'd be good to go. Alexbrn 04:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You and I have had a fairly thorough debate about this, which I'd encourage anyone to read. To recap my view: I don't dispute that it has been called this, but the term is a non-scientific, value-laden judgment that should not be put into "Misplaced Pages's voice" per WP:LABEL and certainly should not precede a description of the diet itself. I am willing to abide by some criticism of the diet in the introduction, but your idea of a compromise here seems to be adding even more criticism. Hence my interest in seeking wider input. For the sake of argument, and taking your point about the breadth of it's popularity into account, here's a possible alternative:

The South Beach Diet is a diet which emphasizes eating high-fiber, low-glycemic carbohydrates, unsaturated fats, and lean protein, and categorizes carbohydrates and fats as good or bad. It was developed by Arthur Agatston in the 1990s, and became popular following the publication of The South Beach Diet in 2003.

References

1. Abby Goodnough (October 7, 2003). "New Doctor, New Diet, But Still No Cookies". The New York Times.
2. ^ Goff SL, Foody JM, Inzucchi S, Katz D, Mayne ST, Krumholz HM (July 2006). "BRIEF REPORT: nutrition and weight loss information in a popular diet book: is it fact, fiction, or something in between?". J Gen Intern Med. 21 (7): 769–74. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00501.x. PMC 1924692. PMID 16808780.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. "Sizing up South Beach. It makes some good points, but The South Beach Diet has problems typical of diet books: lack of proof and some dubious claims". Harv Health Lett. 29 (1): 5. November 2003. PMID 14633496.
4. DeBruyne L, Pinna K, Whitney E (2011). Chapter 7: Nutrition in practice — fad diets (8th ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 209. ISBN 1-133-71550-8. 'a fad diet by any other name would still be a fad diet.' And the names are legion: the Atkins Diet, the Cheater's Diet, the South Beach Diet, the Zone Diet. Year after year, 'new and improved' diets appear ... {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

To be sure, I would strongly prefer that the phrase "fad diet" not be included in the introduction at all, but in the interests of getting to a version better than the current, I could live with either one. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added some substantive stuff from your proposal, which would in its entirety rather play down the scientific view of this diet and over-emphasise the title of the for-sale product. Alexbrn 16:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I do appreciate your inclusion of specific information about how the diet is intended to work, so thanks for that. I remain concerned that, after all this time, you have continued to ignore my point that "fad diet" is used as a pejorative, and therefore is unsuited for the first line of the introduction. Meanwhile, this new version of the first sentence—developed by Arthur Agatston in a best-selling 2003 book—is incorrect. It was developed in the 1990s, but popularized following the publication of this book. For what it's worth, I didn't ask for it to be called "best-selling" although it certainly fits that definition. I'm also not sure where "sound science" comes into play; I know it is a phrase you have used, but if it's supported by a reliable source, I haven't seen it. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"The book which promotes it also contains some incorrect and misleading information" can be summarized as the diet's promised benefits not being not being based on "sound science", no? If there's an equally good or better summary I'd be cool with that too ... Maybe we could just say some of Agatston's material was incorrect and misleading? Whatever, it's important we bring out the notable criticism here that some of this diet's promotional boosting is just hooey. Alexbrn 20:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

What part of the introduction, exactly, do you consider "promotional boosting"? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No, not the introduction here; the "boosting" is associated with the diet itself which, as we know, advertises itself as more than it is. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be buying into that game. We keep ourselves clean by being sure to contexualize the diet within the expert opinion of high-quality independent sources. Alexbrn 21:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, WWB_Too as we know you are being paid to edit this article on behalf of entities with a financial interet in making money from this iffy diet. In the interest of transparency, could you please clarify what it is you've been asked to do here? I'd also be interested to know how much you're being paid and what the terms are. Care to help? Alexbrn 21:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The specific terms of my contract with the SBD brand are none of your business, but I will share this much: my agreed-upon work period has actually passed. I'm still here because it pains me to see Misplaced Pages's processes fail. I stated the range of problems with the entry in my first post on this page, now archived. However, this is off-topic. I'd prefer to discuss the content, and I think we need—at the very least—a third opinion. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You cannot "contract" with a "brand" but only with an entity. You are required to disclose what that entity is. If you want (unhelpfully) to keep confidential the terms of that contract, then so be it; but failing to disclose the precise identity of "your employer, client, and affiliation" is a violation of WP's terms of service. Alexbrn 22:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, now we're having a conversation in two different places. This page should focus on the content of the article; if you wish to discuss the work I do generally and how I go about it, let's keep that on my user Talk page. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

A few thoughts in response to the ping. Keep in mind that this is fairly cursory - I've never looked into this diet before, and you guys have presumably been studying it in some detail. :-) With regard to the two proposals in dropdown boxes in this section, I have a preference for having a separate paragraph about efficacy in the lead when health may be involved, but tastes may vary in that respect.

I typically don't have too many preferences on whether a specific word is used or not, e.g. if we want to use the term "incorrect" I don't think there's anything wrong with that (as long as it can be sourced) but its absence also wouldn't bother me since I think "promises benefits not backed by supporting evidence" should give basically the same message. On the term "fad diet," the sources seem to make a pretty strong case, e.g. we have a nutrition textbook that doesn't only call the SBD as a fad diet but as a typical example of a fad diet (and presumably is using it as a neutral technical term rather than as a pejorative). So if the term is used, it seems to me that unless sources of similar quality are presented that either contest this or use more useful terminology, it should be presented as a statement of fact as is the standard practice. It doesn't have to be in the first sentence but I suppose it could be. Of course, if there are any synonyms which avoid the negative popular connotations but convey the same information, that would probably be better, though I can't think of one at the moment. Sunrise (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

adding my 2 cents. from a neutral point of view, "fad diet" is totally appropriate. it is in the sources and it is how the field of nutrition discusses things like SBD. from a marketing viewpoint I know that is a bummer but that is the way the ball bounces in an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughtful comment, User:Sunrise. On the whole I tend to agree with your way of thinking although, with a closer read, I believe you might change your opinion on whether "fad diet" is a simple statement of fact. Here is my best case for why I think the term is misapplied:

• How strong is nutrition book as a source? The book User:Alexbrn cites is a perfectly fine source, but it only mentions "South Beach Diet" twice. The first time it's grouped in a list of other "fad diets"; the second time it's called a "popular diet". I haven't argued in favor of the latter phrase because I've figured that would be seen as promotional. But this helps to clarify an issue unaddressed so far: the word "fad" is sometimes used to mean "has a popular following" and sometimes meant as in "food faddism". The former is not necessarily pejorative; the latter is, and this is Alexbrn's stated intent.

• What is the definition of "fad diet" anyway? Consistent with the definition found at Food faddism, online medical dictionaries all describe it approximately as McGraw-Hill does: Any of a number of weight-reduction diets that either eliminate one or more of the essential food groups, or recommend consumption of one type of food in excess at the expense of other foods; FDs rarely follow modern principles for losing weight. Yes, the first phase restricts whole grains and fruit, but they are reintroduced in the second phase. On the whole, it is intended to be a sustainable, low-glycemic diet. SBD has enjoyed popularity, sure, but it's not a classic case of "food faddism" (like, say, the Master Cleanse or Grapefruit diet).

• What do medical sources say about SBD and fad diets? Alexbrn initially cited a Harvard Health Letter paper which uses "Diet Fads" as a MeSH tag (along with "Florida" and "Humans") in relation to a discussion of South Beach Diet. On PubMed, "diet fads" appears 664 times. The term appears with "south beach diet" just twice. Pretty flimsy for the introductory sentence, no?

• So why does the phrase come up so often? Based on my reading, the most reliable sources, such as the nutrition book mentioned above, or this book about the food business Alexbrn has pointed to previously, put SBD into a list of other "fad diets" such as the Atkins diet, Weight Watchers, Zone Diet, and Jenny Craig programs. (At the risk of disturbing the WP:OTHERSTUFF gods, I'll point out none of the linked articles use the phrase "fad diet".) Used this way, the term is inexact, suggestive rather than descriptive, and serves as a catch-all for describe any diet with a commercial interest behind it.

At best, "fad diet" is reductionist. At worst, it's an unscientific, POV-laden term. I'm willing to live with the phrase appearing in the article—even in the introduction—so long as it's prefaced by a clear statement of what the diet is about, and the phrase is attributed to a source. The food business book I think would be particularly good for this.

The above being my best case, this is the last I'll press the point about "fad diet" for the time being. Between the two of you, Sunrise and User:Jytdog, I believe you'll read with an open mind and modify your position, or not, based on sources and guidelines. Meantime, as always, I'm happy to answer any questions. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an impressive effort to rid the lede of the "fad diet" term, but I'm afraid it's just what the diet is - and how it is routinely referred to both in academic and lay publications (as any search will easily show). It would be possible to add good sources until the cows came home if necessary but I really don't see any point since we're well-sourced enough already. Maybe, though, this from Nature Medicine could dispel any lingering doubt about how this is just a plain and neutral way this diet is referred to:

• "People to watch". Nature Medicine. 12 (1): 29–29. 2006. doi:10.1038/nm0106-29. ISSN 1078-8956. James Hill wants Americans to shed pounds. But instead of promoting any one fad diet, he embraces most--Atkins, South Beach, grapefruit-only--as relatively effective ways to lose weight.

Alexbrn 17:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think the above quote actually supports my point: writers loosely use this term, which has both medical and colloquial meanings, to describe a range of diets with little in common. As currently used in the lead, the phrase either places a value judgment on the subject before a working definition is provided, or puts jargon ahead of a clear description. Either one I believe does readers a disservice. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That's NPOV for you. Misplaced Pages mentions this is just A.N. other fad diet as that is what good sources tend to do. We've baked a neutrality ingredient into the lede. These diets do have an essential characteristic in common: they're a bit iffy and exist mostly for enriching the deviser. We clue the reader in from the off that this is the view of high-quality respectable sources. We're not attempting to provide any "service" to the reader other than neutrally digesting accepted knowledge about the diet. Alexbrn 02:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

i suggest we stop debating "fad diet". There is no more to say on this, regardless of how WWB_Too feels about it. (sorry WWB_Too) Jytdog (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid I don't think a debate has really occurred here. Alexbrn is implacable, you seem intent on staying out of it, and no one else seems particularly motivated to get involved. In the interests of being realistic, I will have to let this go for the time being. I'll just conclude with the observation that, in his own words, Alexbrn is putting a particular viewpoint ahead of a disinterested recitation of facts—and that I am deeply disappointed that no one is willing to engage with the points I've made. Before I wrap this up entirely, I will put together a final list of issues that I consider outstanding with this entry, and I will post this by the end of the week. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As a wise person once said to me, in another forum entirely, when I complained about a committee document I had tried to influence, but which ended up not to my liking: "You see before you the result of consensus!". There is general approval for the text as it is, and no significant opposition, and so - it stands as the consensus text. Alexbrn 21:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn There is a distinct difference between consensus and bullying. In consensus, everyone goes away feeling that they can live with the solution. In bullying, one person wins, and the others leave disappointed. I see no consensus here. 142.254.111.19 (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

that statement reflects a lack of understanding of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV as those terms are used in WP. Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, sure doesn't. From the page: "When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal." That did not happen here. LaMona (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That shows a lack of understanding too. The opening sentence of that para has "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised". Dissenters with improper concerns (e.g. those that run against our WP:PAGs) can be safely discounted: for example if a group of editors wanted to use Misplaced Pages libel a celebrity based on hearsay their "dissent" would count for nothing no matter how clamorous it was. So it goes for attempts here to have the article not reflect the content of high-quality sources - hence the WP:NPOV aspect: neutrality is a non-negotiable. Alexbrn 06:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Unresolved problems with the current article

From August 2014 until this message, I have been active on this discussion page, offering suggestions for improvement in my capacity as a contractor to South Beach Diet, the company responsible for the book series and food brand. While some of my suggestions were adopted, most changes have been made by others based on their own views. While the article has changed significantly, there are numerous ways this article remains problematic. It's incomplete, out-of-date, and certain sections are clearly written from an adversarial POV. While I am stepping back for a time, the purpose of this message is to highlight remaining issues for others to consider fixing:

Introduction

• The introduction itself takes a strong POV against the diet, whereas other reputable online medical sources—WebMD and Mayo Clinic, both used as citations elsewhere within the article, present the diet in far more balanced terms. The sources currently cited represent only critical views, and describe an earlier version of the diet, prior to publication of the book South Beach Diet Supercharged.
• One of the more intractable disagreements is whether "fad diet" is a suitable descriptor for the first sentence of the entire article. I have argued that it's a contentious label (WP:LABEL); User:Alexbrn argues it's a simple fact; no one else has taken a strong position either way. I'd encourage anyone interested in evaluating our respective arguments to read these two threads, here and here.

Technique

• The section deals with the methodology and three phases of the diet, and I find Technique to be an odd name. I'd suggest something like Method, Methodology or The three phases.
• The section refers to the diet's three "stages" but the term in used in the literature is "phases".
• The section acknowledges there are three phases to the diet, yet only includes details about the first of them. A few suggested points for the second and third phases are below. All of which can all be supported by the MayoClinic article on the diet:
  • Phase 2 allows for what it considers "good" carbohydrates, such as whole grains and fruit, to be reincorporated gradually.
  • Agatston's books advise that those on Phase 2 can lose between one and two pounds a week during this phase, which lasts until the dieter's goal weight is achieved.
  • Phase 3 is designed as the maintenance phase of the diet and is intended to be followed indefinitely as a lifestyle.
  • In Phase 3, the eating principles from Phase 2 are retained and followers of the diet are able to eat all foods in moderation.

Health effects

• Besides the introduction, this is arguably the least balanced section—only critical views have been selected for inclusion. Here's just one sentence I'd encourage editors to reconsider: "Dr. Elizabeth Mayer-Davis, a diabetes researcher, questions the validity of the glycemic index, on which the diet is based." This is just one researcher's opinion, and there are plenty of counter-arguments from respected dieticians, including the work of Jennie Brand-Miller. One such source is an article from The Journal of the American College of Nutrition: "Dietary glycemic index: health implications."
• The phrase "fad diet" again occurs without qualification.

History

• The section stops short at 2008. A few items that should be included are below:
  • In August 2011, equity firm MidOcean Partners purchased the South Beach Diet brand in partnership with Dr. Agatston and moved its headquarters to Bonita Springs, Florida.
  • South Beach Diet branded foods were launched in 2011 under MidOcean Partners' management.
    • Sources include Fortune, NCN News and The Miami Herald article "South Beach Diet has new owner" by Ina Paiva Cordle published on August 1, 2011 (unfortunately, it's not online).
  • The publication of The South Beach Diet Gluten Solution could also be added, as it marked a shift in the diet's goals. This Miami Herald article would serve as a good resource.

Misc.

• I'd also like to suggest the inclusion of a bibliography. As far as I can tell, there is no comprehensive list of South Beach Diet books anywhere. It could be useful for readers to have the full bibliography.
• The Further reading section includes only one source, with a quote selected to highlight criticism of the diet. Again, WebMD and Mayo Clinic would be ideal sources to include.
• In August, I proposed a detailed, well-researched version of the entry which I believed to be a straightforward, non-promotional and encyclopedic treatment of the subject. However, I could not find consensus for it, and very little of it has been used. For anyone interested in working on this article in the future, it may be a good resource. You can find it here.

While I'll have to move on to other projects at this time, it is possible I will return to this subject in the future. If so, I hope a better discussion can be obtained at that time. Until then, I hope other editors will act on any changes they agree with from based on my notes above. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WWB_Too you perhaps missed it but I weighed in on "fad diet" on christmas eve, here. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I've seen your comment, Jytdog but I'm afraid it doesn't address any of the points I made. My frustration here is less about having my way—I hope you'll notice that I was willing to modify my position in search of consensus—and more that I couldn't seem to get anyone to engage the substance of my arguments. Considering the section you started just below, I take it you see merit in some of the points I raised in my last comment? If there is something you would like to fix, please let me know. In spite of all the trouble this has been, I'd still like to see this article improved. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Scope question

in the view of folks working here, is this article about the diet per se (what you are supposed to eat and not eat and when), or about the business around it, or both? Am asking due to some of the issues raised in WWB's comments above. Am thinking we may want to have this be about both, but deal with the business aspects separately and clearly.Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Both I think, but reflecting the coverage found in good sources - so mainly on the dietary/health aspects. Alexbrn 02:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of keeping the business aspects in their own section(s). The diet should be the first thing one encounters. The lead would also follow this pattern, with the business aspects mentioned last. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

SBD criticism

I was thinking about the amount of criticism in the article, since this was brought up above by WWB Too, so I decided to do a review of sources to investigate. There aren't too many good secondary sources available, but a couple of examples are and (possibly ). My scans of the primary literature the reviews are based on also generally show critical viewpoints in terms of effectiveness and other health benefits. So on this analysis, it seems that it's even possible that the article contains less criticism than WP:WEIGHT would suggest. I also note that the Mayo Clinic article, which has been cited above, is primarily reporting what the SBD claims are, while also saying that e.g. there have been no long-term RCTs. Sunrise (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sunrise, thanks for leaving this comment. First, I agree there is criticism not now contained in the article. In fact, when I offered a suggested rewrite of this article last year, my Reception and studies section included some criticisms not currently mentioned. That said, in my reading of these sources and others, I keep finding that positive or neutral statements have been omitted or glossed over, while critical views are described in more detail. A good example is how the Technique section devotes its second paragraph to the diet's (more controversial) first phase while the (generally praised) second and third phases are not explained in such detail.

A related issue is that the most detailed sources—such as the first and second linked above, and this Goff study currently cited in the article—predate the 2008 publication of South Beach Diet Supercharged, which corrected errors from the first book and modified some recommendations criticized in these papers. Some changes have been publicized. For example, the third source you cite notes the addition of an exercise plan in this book (FWIW, I actually thought this source was quite well-balanced). So, part of our challenge here is that the pre-2008 sources do not fully describe the diet as recommended for the past several years, although these changes haven't received a full accounting in third-party sources. What should or can we do this? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

We reflect what is contained in good sources. They naturally deal with the SBD at the time it was at its most popular. It is not Misplaced Pages's job to deal with later less popular publications, for differently-named diets, if they haven't risen to the attention of RS. Alexbrn 06:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It's the same diet, updated; it's only the book that has a different name. For example, the Encyclopedia of Diet Fads book Sunrise cited considers them to be the same diet. Speaking to general popularity, Supercharged was also a multi-week NYT bestseller as well (see here and here). Speaking to the lack of follow-up in medical sources, most of these studies cover Atkins and Zone as well as SBD; modified-carb diets received considerable media attention the early 2000s. The diets remain popular, but are no longer as newsworthy.

Meantime, we have a situation where the Goff study in itemizes errors in the first SBD book, and most or all of these were corrected in the later edition, although Goff et al never followed this up. Must the Misplaced Pages article must remain outdated? It seems like this is an issue that could reasonably be addressed through careful consideration of Supercharged as a primary source. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"most or all of these were corrected" ← any source for that? Alexbrn 17:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

WWB_Too, I am assuming you are still acting as a paid editor. If so please suggest specific, reliably sourced content to realize your goals. If you want to change content, then just frame it as "replace X with Y". If you are no longer paid, you are of course free to directly edit. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, there was quite a bit more to my point than that there is criticism not now contained in the article. I was stressing that these are high-quality sources (which is also why I mentioned the Mayo Clinic source as being mostly descriptive, as it is also fairly good). More generally, we can also see a trend that higher-quality sources tend to be less positive and/or more critical, which is a typical pattern seen in relation to fringe claims.

To rephrase Alexbrn's response to your question perhaps in a better way, if the reliable sources have not addressed the more recent books, then then we cannot do so ourselves until we have the sources. Likewise, if they have focused on the first phase of the diet (though I wasn't checking for this when I was reading the sources) then that is what we must do as well per WP:WEIGHT. This is unfortunate when the RS are out of date, as you say is the case here, but it is a necessary check on editorial judgement as I'm sure you understand. Sunrise (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn + Sunrise, I completely understand the challenges involved, though I think there might be a way to word it more accurately. If there's even possibly agreement to follow the "carefully" provision of WP:USEPRIMARY I think it could be more accurate still. I'll look that, and will offer a suggestion here soon. Jytdog, I appreciate the suggestion, however, even if I was no longer working directly with the company, I'd be inclined to avoid direct edits. In recent years, I'ver avoided editing article space from this account to avoid any possibility of confusion. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggested change to introduction

Hi again, folks. Taking Jytdog's suggestion that I offer a "replace X with Y" construction for consideration, I'd like to propose an expanded rewrite of the introduction's second paragraph, which currently reads:

The South Beach Diet has some elements which are generally recognized as sound, but also promises benefits not backed by supporting evidence or sound science.

These citations, as I've noted previously, date to 2003 and 2006, prior to the 2008 publication of The South Beach Diet Supercharged which introduced some noteworthy revisions. (It also corrected errors from previous versions, but I don't have a WP:RS identifying changes, so I'm going to leave that alone.) Meanwhile, the vagueness of this sentence has always bothered me. I think it would be more helpful for readers if this identified what the "good" and "bad" elements include. To that end, I've reviewed current and new sources (including one identified by Sunrise) and attempted to offer a concise summary. Here is what I propose to replace it with:

The diet is considered an overall healthy approach to weight loss, although it has been criticized for potential negative side effects in its restrictive first phase, and its de-emphasis of exercise. The diet's latter phases are considered to be more balanced. In 2008 the diet was revised to recommend moderate exercise and allow for greater flexibility in its earlier phases.

1. ^ Zelman, Kathleen (September 23, 2009). "The South Beach Diet Supercharged". WebMD. Retrieved 26 January 2015.
2. ^ Dawn Jackson Blatner for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Book Review: The South Beach Diet Super Charged
3. Bijlefeld, Marjolijn (2014). Encyclopedia of Diet Fads: Understanding Science and Society. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 0313361460. Retrieved 26 January 2015. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
4. "Top diets review for 2014 § South Beach Diet". NHS Choices. 20 December 2013.
5. "Sizing up South Beach". Harv Health Lett. 29 (1): 5. November 2003. PMID 14633496.

As you'll see, I've identified the prevailing criticisms as being side effects from the first phase, and its conflicted message about exercise. Because the latter phases are frequently identified as being better, and the 2008 book addressed some broad concerns, I've included these points as well. To see the specific statements I relied upon from each source, and for explanation of some arguable omissions, expand this box:

I'm sure there will be some differing views about how to summarize this, so I am certainly open to suggestions about how to achieve the right balance to this paragraph. That said, I do think most of the sources, including those cited above, are more balanced in their outlook on the diet than is the current article, and my suggestions are intended to reflect that. I'm looking forward to feedback. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

nothing should be in the lead that is not in the body already. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A direct link to the Harvard source is here, by the way. In addition to the previous issues raised with your proposals (which you haven't addressed, e.g. that you need to give greater weight to higher-quality sources), I don't think that citation is a fair representation of the source. They mention four categories of criticism: that the diet's recommendations lack proof, lack credibility, are misleading, and contain a factual error. It's probably the weakest possible criticism that you could use the source to cite. In addition, the point of the comment on exercise is to support the statement that the book is misleading; the observation that exercise is in fact good for you is tangential. Sunrise (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, we could certainly add some of this to the body, and I can put that together if you'll consider it. Sunrise, how about using this as a base and then more clearly describing criticism from the Harvard Health Letter? Of course, all of this detail can be included in the body of the article. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Updated suggested replacement

Hello again, Jytdog and Sunrise. I expect you're busy elsewhere at the moment, but I figured you gave me enough to go on for another crack at this. For anyone else reading, the sentence I'd like to replace is this one from the article's introduction:

The South Beach Diet has some elements which are generally recognized as sound, but also promises benefits not backed by supporting evidence or sound science.

The construction offered below is more alike the existing second-paragraph sentence than what I suggested earlier in the week, though it still aims to fix the two problems I'd previously identified: a) the sentence refers to initial studies of the diet only, without noting the diet made changes in subsequent editions, and b) the praise and criticisms are unhelpfully vague. Preserving the same references as above—but waiting for now to create the full markup—here's what I suggest:

Medical reviews from the mid-2000s praised the diet's distinction between good and bad fats and its balanced latter phases, while criticizing its restrictive first phase and finding some claims misleading and overstated, such as the diet's impact on insulin resistance and de-emphasis of exercise. The 2008 revision introduced an exercise plan and allowed greater flexibility in the diet's first phase.

Of the criticisms to be found in the Harvard Health Letter, two I think can be safely omitted: "lack of proof" claim became quickly outdated when studies were conducted, and the single error was corrected in later editions (of course we won't find a third-party source pointing that out, but that goes to show how minor it was). However, the "credibility" issue is represented by the insulin resistance claim, and the "misleading" issue is represented by the exercise mention. Indeed, the exercise issue was relevant enough to be mentioned in reviews when the 2008 edition came out; same with the less-strict advice for the first phase. I also suggest reinstating the Goff study, which speaks to errors in the early editions better than HHL.

Only one thing here is missing from the body of the article, that being the Harvard Health Letter criticism of the diet's claims on insulin resistance syndrome. For this reason, I suggest adding the following sentence to the end of the second paragraph of Health effects:

In addition, a claim in the 2003 book that the diet would eliminate cravings for sugar and starches has been challenged on the grounds that insulin resistance syndrome likely has roots in genetics, which would be unaffected by dietary changes.

I'm interested to hear what you think of this suggestion. If there's consensus for this change, I can update the markup for someone else to move. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

In general, it waters-down the criticism in the best sources - which we are bound to reflect - and therefore is not neutral. You're not fully engaging with other editor's comments, but continually WP:CPUSHing spun text, which is probably why others aren't responding any more. Honestly - starting a summarizing sentence on this diet with "Medical reviews from the mid-2000s praised ..." is pretty rum! Alexbrn 05:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Alex, could you explain which part of Sunrise's response I am not engaging with? The point seemed to be that I should include more specifics from HHL, and so I did. Likewise, if you think I'm watering down any criticism, please explain how? I'm surprised—what I'm proposing now includes reference to specific criticisms of the diet (as well as praise, yes) as opposed to the current wording, where unspecified "elements" are good but some "promises" are not. Surely this sentence can be improved. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 11:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Including more specifics from HHL was not in fact the point; I used it as an example of how you need to choose statements which are representative of the content of sources. There is a similar issue with the NHS source, which appears roughly neutral on the SBD but is being used to cite praise only (and which also should not be described as a "medical review").

The second main issue at this point is in reflecting sources in proportion to their reliability. I'm assuming that although you're a longtime Misplaced Pages editor, you may not have as much experience in writing content for scientific questions; my experience is that being able to weigh sources becomes much more important. So for example, the HHL source is more reliable than the NHS source (among other things, it is published in a journal). This has implications for e.g. which of them should be given prominence of place in the paragraph, and which of them needs to be followed if they seem to contradict. There are also other issues regarding non-neutral wording (or juxtaposition of statements, etc), but as someone who works with these issues for a living, I think you should be able to identify these yourself. :-) Sunrise (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sunrise, I've spent a lot of time thinking about this. It's obviously a tricky subject. As you point out, not all sources are equal. The most rigorous sources describe the diet circa 2003, while less rigorous sources describe the diet post-2008. However, the current article makes use of both kinds, so there should be no reason why the introduction can't do the same.

Second, I am genuinely surprised to hear you say that my wording is "non-neutral"; you really will have to be more specific. And yet the current version includes phrases like "some elements" and "some benefits" that are ominously vague. The underlying issues are not difficult to verify and summarize. If my wording isn't quite right, I'm open to alternate suggestions.

Here's an idea: in a recent comment, you pointed to this book as a quality source to be considered. It's more recent than the studies currently cited, and acknowledges the good and bad, with specifics. Would you be open to using this source as the basis for a revised version of what the current sentence aims to do? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to continue with this a bit longer, and I've written up some thoughts. However, could you first please make sure that your response addresses each of the statements in my own comment, even if only to agree or disagree? I think it's especially important in this case given the content of my comment. (For example, beyond just agreeing that not all sources are equal, could you comment on each of the specific points that I mentioned? And so forth.) Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sunrise, I am certainly willing to do so, with a provision. I can see that you're frustrated that I'm not fully grokking what you've been saying. I would add that we seem to both have posed questions the other has not examined and replied to fully. Below, I've outlined replies to each of the points from your last message. Upon your next comment, I'll read closely, consider it all, and respond in good faith. In turn, I hope you will return the favor. Of course, it doesn't mean we'll agree, but I think we'll do better to address each other with more consideration (while avoiding TL;DR).

To respond to the points in your last note, then:

1. I follow your point and agree that statements should be representative of the content of a source; the issue I'm grappling with is that none of these sources are entirely negative or entirely positive, they include elements of criticism and praise, and I feel both should be noted in the article and in its lead, with more detail so readers know the nature of what has been criticized or noted positively about SBD.
2. Specifically with regard to the NHS source, I was surprised you objected to it being cited in this way; after all, it is already used in the entry to verify information that's favorable and unfavorable to SBD.
3. Fair enough about the phrase "medical review"—I was looking for a phrase to summarize the totality of relevant sources. Perhaps simply "medical sources"?
4. I certainly agree that article content should be proportionately representative of sources, with greater weight afforded to the more rigorous. What I would like to see is the information cited to such sources being more specific rather than supporting vague phrasing like "benefits not backed by supporting evidence or sound science".
5. I follow your point about more rigorous sources being given prominence in a paragraph; it's not an issue I've had to work with much, tending to focus on non-scientific articles the vast majority of the time. Are you essentially saying that material cited to the HHL and other journal sources should be introduced to the reader prior to mentioning less rigorous sources? If so, I'd be concerned about readability and the logical presentation of information, if this must always be followed.
6. Regarding the juxtaposition issue, again, I'm grappling with the fact that the sources about the health effects of the diet are all from the early 2000s, while some of the specific criticisms they raise don't apply to the current diet plan (which was updated in the 2008 book). I'm not sure I agree that it's non-neutral to include a mention of the updated diet in the introduction, but I'll concede perhaps there is a better way to do it.

These points made, I do want to register an observation: that responses from current participants on this page appear to me to sidestep the specific concerns I've raised and instead point to reasons why my proposal doesn't work. I.e. whatever problems I've identified with the article are always secondary to something others find wrong with my solution, and no specific counter-suggestion is ever put forth. I too would like this not to continue indefinitely, and counter-suggestions could help this come to a reasonable conclusion. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That, or (might I humbly suggest?) you drop the WP:STICK. This has been to two three noticeboards, had a RfC, and benefited from the input of several very experienced med. editors who, it appears, don't share your continually re-stated concerns. I am not persuaded there are any big problems with this article that need addressing, though new high-quality sources can always change that ... Alexbrn 17:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am here in response to a request for comment on at WP:FOOD. In my opinion the proposed change is excessively detailed for a lead statement. Both blocks of text are conveying approximately the same information. The short text could be improved but not with that level of detail. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The current text contains generalities only, and mine contains two common points of praise, three common points of criticism, and then a statement about how the diet was significantly updated later. If a middle ground between the two is possible, I'd be for it. I'd certainly like to see something come from this. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Alex: I don't mind continuing for a bit more. I mainly see value in establishing principles that may be useful for WWB's further projects, and for those he interacts with.

WWB: Of course I'm not opposed to any changes in principle. What I hope you will get out of the discussion is different from you (see the previous line), but I can imagine a few changes that editors may be able to agree on. I'll start writing a complete response, but please keep in mind that this is a side project for me so I may take a while. In the meantime, if there is anything you think I haven't fully addressed (as you suggest above) from before your comment at 21:30 6 Feb, please let me know so I can make sure to include it. Sunrise (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sunrise, I am interested in what you have to say, but it sounds like it won't be about the content of this article, and so I'd suggest that this isn't the place for it. If you'll take that particular discussion to my user Talk page or yours, that seems more appropriate. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It would primarily be about this article, so this is probably a better place. :-) Sunrise (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

WWB Too, I think you are a little bit too wrapped up with making this article positive for you client. On balance I think Sunrise is more correct about this than you and I think you need to take a deeper look her arguments. That said, there has been a lot of very uncivil language direct at WWB Too. That should stop.Intermittentgardener (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Intermittentgardener, I'm open to any specific criticisms you may have, however I do think at this time the article is unbalanced and overly critical of SBD in a way that WP:NPOV intends to prohibit. Hence, my as yet unsuccessful efforts on this discussion page. And yet I'm supportive of the one change you did make, regarding the use of "fad diet" in the introduction. This has been a point of debate between myself and Alexbrn (see Introduction discussion here). Interestingly, his explanation for reverting it was that it is "sourced" although the exact same sources refer to it as a "popular diet" as well. I would be interested to hear from editors here about why one is OK but the other is not. As far as I can tell, it is a clear example of WP:CHERRYPICKING. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Random Drive-by Commentary on SBD as "fad".

First point: "Fad" implies, rather heavily, the companion word "passing." Ephemerality is an essential point of fads, although they may, of course recur and relapse, like other pestilences. Even if we ignore the earlier ideas about lower carbohydrate diets allowing some people to more easily lose weight, which go back at least to Banting, SB has been around a solid dozen years in published form, and longer in the writer's own clinical practice. That's very different from the usuall diet-o'-the-week, which seems to last exactly long enough to get on some talk show before the books have to be remaindered.

Next, several of the contra references are poster children for why Wiki editors should be cautious about interpreting technical matters not in their personal areas of expertise. Passing over the fact that one of the references documenting that SB is a fad diet is, in fact, a review of cheap but palatable wines , several others focus on claims that are irrelevant to the subject. One on the (obvious, I hope) point that early glycogen loss gets rapidly replaced as soon as a less restricted diet is allowed; another focuses on the initial very-low-carbohydrate phase's (again, obvious) unsuitability for a long term diet. There is a very specific claim made about glycemic potentials of foods that, in fact, has nothing to do with ease of weight loss, but with control of hyperglycemic complications in diabetes. Another cite, from WebMD in 2008, has since been updated with some of the earlier caveats removed; it now unequivocally endorses it:

"Does It Work?   Yes. It's a healthy approach to eating that can help you shed pounds. "  

The Mayo Clinic piece is cited for minor caveats, but it, too, is a fairly ringing endorsement of SB for weight loss.

Then, there are several legitimate points about lack of wide validation from other clinical experience...or, rather points which were legitimate in 2003, but have since been either validated or discredited.

Finally, one contra piece, from the "Prevention Institute," sidesteps addressing the SB Diet completely. It betrays little evidence that the author actually read the thing -it seems to take it as an Atkins clone - and focuses instead on the social and health consequences of overemphasis on weight, to the exclusion of good nutrition and overall good health -valid points, but irrelevant to this article specifically.

By way of anecdote, I've had to lose weight a few times, and have done so successfully, if you count success as sustained loss measured in decades, and was advised by my then physician to try the SB; his stated reasons were that it had worked for other patients, did not involve any added health risks, in the way that, say, Atkins might, and, most importantly, was accessible, with information available free in libraries and cheap in bookstores, and with no actual requirement to purchase anything that wasn't found at a supermarket. I dunno if this counts as COI. Anmccaff (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anmccaff, in case you haven't seen, I opened up this as a point for discussion at DRN earlier today; please feel free to comment there as well, if you like. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little skeptical of your position here, frankly, and I'd be interested in a more full explanation of exactly where you stand before sticking my foot further in that tar baby.Anmccaff (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Food Faddism Moved from a userpage. (Warning. Contains some re-hashing.)

.

(Reverted to revision 651596279 by Alexbrn (talk): An established medical textbook is solid WP:MEDRS, as has been 
discussed on the SBD Talk page - check it out. (TW))

(in reference to a nutrition text cited as proof that "SB diet is "food faddism")

Several points. To begin with, this is not a "medical textbook" in the stricter sense; it's an introductory dietician's text for everything except a certification program or an associate's degree, no? That implies a certain level of rigor, and it doesn't disappoint: the section a page or two down, comparing "popular" diets, has nothing at all bad to say about the SB except that the short-term introductory period is not suited for long-term use. (It's also at least one...no, two printings out of date, a common wikifailing, and one rather relevant to whether something is a "fad.")

Next, it explicitly adopts the common, mainline meaning of "fad" -something that is by definition ephemeral- for something that appears to be, in its present form, in clinical use for a score of years, and published, subject to peer review and criticism, for 15. Most "fad diets", in the strict sense, last long enough for the bubble to pop, or the first-run printing to run through, or Oprah to stop returning their phone calls.

Finally, it would appear that the initial book has acquired clinical respectability. Mayo doesn't endorse things lightly. What, if anything, that means for follow-on works or for co-branded products is, I think, not relevant.Anmccaff (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Adding an even older source hardly strengthens the position, but rather weakens it. Perhaps it was justifiable to use the term in 2006; but is it now? More importantly, this again looks like a cite selected off a cursory, tendentious websearch.Anmccaff (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Best if we just follow these good sources rather than inventing reasons for not liking them - in any case discussion of article content should take place on its Talk page. If a book has been reprinted only, its content won't change; are you saying there are later editions (with different content)? Feel free to raise this at WT:MED if you want to widen the consensus. Alexbrn 13:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

These are hardly "invented reasons," but rather mainstays of scholarship. Evaluating the value of sources for particular applications goes well beyond Wiki's elementary RS standards. It's possible to find sources with impeccable credentials that are flat out wrong, especially if one seeks out the conclusion wanted, rather than the mainstream consensus.

Yes, there are two revisions of the book since; whether this section is changed is something neither of us knows, which is telling.Anmccaff (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the latest edition number? And have you an ISBN? I may be able to get access to this from a library here ... Alexbrn 14:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

1305110404 ISBN-13: 9781305110403 9th Edition; appears to have been some changes between editions, with the the e-book being "8&1/2". That said, there are probably 10 similar texts; how does googling out one that agrees with you demonstrate a consensus among experts?Anmccaff (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay: this has a copyright date of 2016 and doesn't seem to be available yet, so I can't get at it. It still has a "Fad diets" section ... are you thinking the SBD was been dropped from that section? Certainly, for the edition we cite that description is good enough for the experts that wrote the book and the review panel that reviewed it. Sounds like you're the one with an axe to grind; I have no opinion on this diet (which I have no experience of, nor of any of its "rival" diets) but am concerned we neutrally reflect the sources and don't act as a distorting instrument for information about SBD, about which the scientific literature seems fairly scathing. But this discussion really belongs on the article Talk page, not here. Alexbrn 15:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It does appear to be available here; perhaps it's a Pondial difference? More to the point, though, I have no idea whether that section is changed, any more than you do. I do know, however, that you selected it posthaste after an an unsupported section was removed from a wiki page you were citing elsewhere. Leaving aside for a moment the use of Wiki as an authority, and passing over the fact that you restored it, without a thought to how authoritative an article which repeatedly cites a wine review as an authority on diet fads is, you are taking as a given that it reflects mainstream scholarly consensus. As I've said, there are about 10 similar books in English, at minimum, at least one even has the same name. Why pick this one, except to plug a hole in an article?

"Scathing?" and "scientific?" The only piece cited I'd call "scathing" was written by a social worker, explaining why it was rude to tell people, especially minority people, that they were obese. It did not enter into any particular criticism of SB as a diet, merely that it was a diet, and that, in itself, was somehow wrong. Several of the issues raised by focused criticisms were legitimate, but might, or might not, be overcome by events. Pointing out that a therapy is unproven at its inception is vital; citing that 15 years later , when the jury should be in elsewhere, is frankly silly.

Yes, this might be best elsewhere; any objections to moving it in toto?Anmccaff (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason I'm "up" on this topic is that it has been discussed (to death) at the SBD article, at noticeboards and in a RfC; I recommend consulting these previous discussions to avoid re-hashing. I've no objection to all/some of this conversation being copied anywhere ... Alexbrn 16:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've again reviewed the cites given in the article, and remain convinced that the one I edited from, and reverted from, fails NPOV. The categorical designation of SB now as a "fad diet" appears to be a minority view among the authors at the level of scholarliness -college nursing/nutrition texts - cited. One of the cites is irrelevant, and frankly, superceded; and another is a sociological take on the whole question of dieting, body image etc. Two of the cites given -WebMD and Mayo- have shifted from strong reservations to fairly strong approval.

There's a real split, of course, between physicians and dietitians, as there always is, with the medicos preferring sub-optimum diets that their patients might actually comply with; and there are real concerns -which I think I share with you - about commercial eiting, and about a diet designed, essentially, for fat fifty-ish pre-diabetics universalized, but science has largely come around to Dr. A's views on easily available calories and food cravings, and the article should reflect that rather than (legitamate) early concerns. Anmccaff (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

you seem to think that "fad diet" is perjorative. it is not. maybe we need an RfC on that. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at the Food faddism article, and see if the ambiguous term "fad diet" isn't used in the pejorative sense there, and if the list of "fad diets" isn't extensively loaded toward the crazier stuff...along with SB, which now seems to be held in a different category by mainstream authoritative sources. The article should reflect that. It should also reflect the fact that it has been a part of a diet fad, and that it is a commercialized product.Anmccaff (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: You're entitled to your original view, but please don't insert it into the article ... the text "While no longer widely viewed as a "fad diet ..." is your view, and not in any source so far as I can see. Inserting unverified text into the lede like this is a big no-no. Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything I wrote as my "orginal view," even in the extremely narrow Wiki-sense of OR. Mesdames DeBruyne, Pinna, and Whitney no longer express the mainstream scholarly consensus on SB, which has shifted. Mayo no longer expresses strong reservations..in fact, it endorses the diet explicitly, with the caveats that apply to -any- weight loss program, WebMD's current take is quite different from that of 2008, and the designation as a "fad diet" no longer has an NPOV place in the lead.Anmccaff (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"which has shifted" ← is that your view or a source's view? If the latter, what source is it that talk of this "shift"? We must favour our strongest sources here. Alexbrn (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Right, which means that cherry-picking an intro dietician's text might not be a valid approach. Anmccaff (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

PS...I suspect some of this edit conflict could be resolved by noting, in the lead, that SB became part of a "diet fad" a dozen years ago...and by the look of it, some people would like to make it part of one again. Anmccaff (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What is an "intro dietician"? Kindly don't speculate about what "some people would like", it is unhelpful bordering on disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"What is an 'intro dietician'?" I have no idea without...um, 'speculating' but 'an intro dietician's text' would be 'an intro text for dieticians.' I don't see anything "speculative,' by the way, about noting that a good deal of recent posting on the page has been driven by commercial purposes. A commercially sponsored editor has been entirely upfront about it, no? Anmccaff (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No longer widely considered "fad."

(Undid revision 656910957 by Anmccaff (talk) this restores unsourced content about "no longer considered a fad diet" - please discus on Talk. thanks)

To begin with, as I see it, I have discussed this already, here. The SBC is now viewed as respectable by several of the authorities who initailly raised concerns. Mayo, the Harvard Health Letter, & WebMD were all cited by earlier versions of the page for their (legitimate) initial reservations, all three now give qualified approval. (Hell, even Atkins gets a certain amount of grudging acceptance from the medicos these days, if not from the dieticians.)

Next, the piece cited is not in the mainstream of similar texts. Look through similar contemporary intro dietetics texts, and note how few of them single out SB anymore. This looks very much like a cherry-picked cite, and one borrowed (albeit by the same editor) directly from Wiki itself.

Finally, look at the page linked, and ask if that generally reflects a neutral meaning of "food faddism;" I'd strongly suggest it does not. Anmccaff (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Food and drink articles
• Mid-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles
• Unassessed Brands articles
• Unknown-importance Brands articles
• WikiProject Brands articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Articles with connected contributors
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests