South Beach Elevator Pitch

[JKonSB]

I am totally happy with SB. I reached my goal about a month ago (30lbs lost) and I am still there and loving phase 3. I have told several friends about it and they are loosing also. Great stuff.
????: South Beach Diet Forums http://www.southbeachdietbulletinboard.com/south-beach-diet-forums/5670-south-beach-elevator-pitch.html

People are always asking me about the diet. What is it? How does it work?

Over the course of an hour I can explain body metabolism, and why it isn't just about calories, and how blood sugar works and how carbs are converted, why you can think of good and bad carbs just like good and bad fats, etc.

For me understading the diet (e.g.why to eat often and why snacks are important and that some fats can help block absorbtion) helped me stick to the key elements of the program.

Problem is, most people don't want to discuss it for an hour: they want what we sales people call "the elevator pitch". I'd love to hear one that describes what makes SB so different and effective. I can't find anything like this (say 50 words or less? maybe you would need 100 words?) in any of the SB books.

Has anyone done this? Anyone want to give it a try?


JK

[no2atkins]

It works because it is not a diet in the sense that most people understand it. Diets to most people mean restriction. Carb and or calorie restriction. SB is about eating the foods we should already be eating. Lean meats, Whole grains, Fruit and Veggies. It does not require an hour to explain that your diet is "eating correctly" To summarize: SB is about making healthy choices in regards to food.

Originally Posted by JKonSB

I am totally happy with SB. I reached my goal about a month ago (30lbs lost) and I am still there and loving phase 3. I have told several friends about it and they are loosing also. Great stuff.

People are always asking me about the diet. What is it? How does it work?

Over the course of an hour I can explain body metabolism, and why it isn't just about calories, and how blood sugar works and how carbs are converted, why you can think of good and bad carbs just like good and bad fats, etc.

For me understading the diet (e.g.why to eat often and why snacks are important and that some fats can help block absorbtion) helped me stick to the key elements of the program.

Problem is, most people don't want to discuss it for an hour: they want what we sales people call "the elevator pitch". I'd love to hear one that describes what makes SB so different and effective. I can't find anything like this (say 50 words or less? maybe you would need 100 words?) in any of the SB books.

Has anyone done this? Anyone want to give it a try?


JK

[RedRox]

The problem is the elevator pitch is as old as the hills and twice as dusty and so people tend to ignore it. It boils down to "eat right and move more for the rest of your life". All of the details of the "eat right" part of that are what you explain for an hour. There is also far too much confusion about what "eating right" means as we are constantly bombarded by daily new studies about this micro element of a total diet as being healthy or unhealthy and few look at it in a macro sense of what most people agree is actually a healthy way to eat which are the core principles of SB eating, lots of veggies, lean proteins, some amount of fruits, nuts, beans, and small amounts of whole grains and starchy veggies all from real food sources. The concepts of healthy SB eating all existed before Dr. A "repackaged" them into the SB program and he "borrowed" pretty much everything in the program from others. He just assembled them into a more coherent plan, had a catchy trendy name and Rodale publishing marketed the hell out of it!

People just want to go on a "diet" and few wish to undertake a full lifestyle change which is why so many ultimately fail (i.e. simply stop) even using SB.

Which is I guess a bit off topic, but perhaps related as to why an "elevator pitch" is needed. People don't really want to understand why what they eat day in and day out for the rest of their lives really matters so much. They just want a "bottom line" to get from point A (current weight) to point B (weigh less than they do now) when the real mission is to get from point A to a new lifestyle that supports their health and activity levels. There really is no point B at all. Think continuous process improvement vs. quarterly results if you will.
????: South Beach Diet Forums http://www.southbeachdietbulletinboard.com/showthread.php?t=5670

But I usually just give people the "I just started eating healthy foods and exercising more" answer and if they want more info, I give them the "lots of vegetables, lean proteins, fruits, nuts, beans and whole grains" answer which is usually enough to glaze their eyes over anyway!

[RedRox]

I bookmarked this article a while back as I thought it talked about this topic on a semi-rational level: Fat and Happy: Why Most People Don't Diet | LiveScience (My bolding added for emphasis) I don't agree with the way the word "diet" is used here either, but such is the vernacular we have to work with in this country where we don't even use the primary definition of the word correctly anymore.

Many of us would like to lose weight in the same way we'd like to get rich by winning the lottery: We'll do it if it doesn't take too much effort. Americans don't want to take the figurative and literal steps to achieve our goals. We want to eat more and weigh less. Diet and exercise—the only proven method for effective, sustained weight loss—sounds good but takes too much willpower for most of us.

The myth that most diets fail has it exactly backward: Instead, most people fail diets. Just about any sensible diet will help a person lose weight. Blaming the diet because the dieter quit is like blaming the unused treadmill for not doing its job. The real solution isn't in fad diets or workout DVDs; the solution is in the mirror.

[no2atkins]

Originally Posted by RedRox

The problem is the elevator pitch is as old as the hills and twice as dusty and so people tend to ignore it. It boils down to "eat right and move more for the rest of your life". All of the details of the "eat right" part of that are what you explain for an hour. There is also far too much confusion about what "eating right" means as we are constantly bombarded by daily new studies about this micro element of a total diet as being healthy or unhealthy and few look at it in a macro sense of what most people agree is actually a healthy way to eat which are the core principles of SB eating, lots of veggies, lean proteins, some amount of fruits, nuts, beans, and small amounts of whole grains and starchy veggies all from real food sources. The concepts of healthy SB eating all existed before Dr. A "repackaged" them into the SB program and he "borrowed" pretty much everything in the program from others. He just assembled them into a more coherent plan, had a catchy trendy name and Rodale publishing marketed the hell out of it!

People just want to go on a "diet" and few wish to undertake a full lifestyle change which is why so many ultimately fail (i.e. simply stop) even using SB.

Which is I guess a bit off topic, but perhaps related as to why an "elevator pitch" is needed. People don't really want to understand why what they eat day in and day out for the rest of their lives really matters so much. They just want a "bottom line" to get from point A (current weight) to point B (weigh less than they do now) when the real mission is to get from point A to a new lifestyle that supports their health and activity levels. There really is no point B at all. Think continuous process improvement vs. quarterly results if you will.

But I usually just give people the "I just started eating healthy foods and exercising more" answer and if they want more info, I give them the "lots of vegetables, lean proteins, fruits, nuts, beans and whole grains" answer which is usually enough to glaze their eyes over anyway!

You make some great points, for the most part people know damn well that a double cheese with fries and a shake is not as healthy as a salad, they know scarfing down 3 chili dogs and a bag of chips is not as healthy as a piece of lean chicken with green beans and say a small cucumber salad...they know 3 slices of pizza isnt as good as a whole grain pita with veggies.

they know darn well what they are shoving in their mouths.

If the people your talking are shocked and dismayed that veggies, fruits and nuts , lean meats etc are what healthy eating is then I think your talking to the wrong crowd....I have yet to meet one person that doesnt agree that they are not eating enough veggies and fruits.

When someone wants to make a change all of a sudden their comprehension skills vastly improve.

[no2atkins]

Originally Posted by RedRox

I bookmarked this article a while back as I thought it talked about this topic on a semi-rational level: Fat and Happy: Why Most People Don't Diet | LiveScience (My bolding added for emphasis) I don't agree with the way the word "diet" is used here either, but such is the vernacular we have to work with in this country where we don't even use the primary definition of the word correctly anymore.

Actually everyone is on a diet as diet means what you eat.
: food and drink regularly provided or consumed b: habitual nourishment

people just associate the word diet with the scary word.....RESTRICTION..lol....

[RedRox]

That was exactly my point. The South Beach Diet is simply the food and drink regularly consumed according to the basic principles of "south beach" eating as defined by Dr. A and his nutritional folks. Other than in the marketing of the book by Rodale, there is little in it that is even specifically weight loss oriented as it's primary goals are to reduce risk of cardiac diseases and help combat insulin resistance/"metabolic syndrome"/pre-diabetes. Both of which are improved of course by weight loss, but that's viewed more of as a means than an end for SB purposes. 99% of the people who start this program reverse those and see weight loss as the goal and the health benefits as a side benefit. Frankly if you wanted to design a program purely for weight loss, many of his recommendations and allowed items don't necessarily make a lot of sense which is why I think it is somewhat counter-intuitive to the serial dieter it seems to attract. Just the ramblings of a mad man of course!

[logmyloss.com]

This very topic is something I have struggled with too. I tend to want to know everything I can about something that I do, and this is no exception. Like has already been pointed out many times in this thread - most everyone else I am around does not want all those details.

[JKonSB]

Redrox- I don't know what you are getting to when you say that the elevator pitch is "as old as the hills and twice as dusty". Are you saying that everyone has already heard it and are tired of the message? (Is there even a SB elevator pitch becasue I haven't heard it. I had to read the book) Or is it that you just don't like the idea of one?

You folks may be right that people really don't want to know why SB works. Maybe it's the engineer in me that needed to understand. I guess I should re-phrase it by saying I believe they need to know what makes SB different. When you are floundering around looking for a way to loose your xxx lbs you definately know what you are doing now is wrong, but that doesn't help you decide if you should be doing Nutri-System (I almost did) or a number of a hundred other diets, pills or programs. Or should you just excersize? Or should you use the latest "fad diet".

Please don't take this wrong but I don't think the advise is as simple as "eat smart". This is a nice sound bite but pretty meaningless (and I think somewhat insulting) to someone who is searching for a solution to what they know is a real (potentially life threatening) problem.

Here's an example of what I mean- we have all been told since the 50's that any "smart" eater starts the day with a glass of OJ and a good breakfast. Using SB rules, it turns out that galss of OJ is not a good idea. Now that just doesn't make sense to the average person who thinks they are being smart.

Or how about this- fruits are good right? They're "smart". Well then why is it that SB essentailly bans fruits in the first two weeks and that some fruits are essentailly banned forever. I mean what's wrong with pineapple or mango anyway? On the other hand you can have olive oil which is totally off limits with Scaresdale?

Again- saying just "eat smart" doesn't get to the heart of the matter at all because there is no consensus as to what defines smart.

I was hoping someone had already done something like this but it is looking like maybe not. Since I've explained SB to at least 15 people in the last couple months (4 are on and are loosing weight) I have some ideas about what messages work and what ones don't.

BTW- I'm not trying to convert the world to SB. I really don't care how or whether people decide to get healthy. On the other hand for those people I love who need to loose weight, I do care. And my ability to to give them a compelling reason to try another diet that won't make them always feel hungry and deprived might just save thier life.
????: South Beach Diet Forums http://www.southbeachdietbulletinboard.com/showthread.php?t=5670

I'll post my work here and would appreciate any feedback.

Best regards to all.

-JK

[RedRox]

See and I disagree because we do know now what constitutes healthy eating and appropriate exercise. That is what I meant by that saying. Changing your diet and lifestyle to improve your overall health and activity levels has always been preached as the solution. Nobody really wants to hear that though. They want the quick solution, they want a "diet" (or pills or some magic herb) to lose weight, they don't want to learn how to eat properly to keep it off after that. The primary focus is wrong to begin with in that people only want to lose weight and very few understand the ultimate solution is weight management, not just weight loss.

There is a real convergence on what is healthy for us these days. We know saturated animal fats are unhealthy and plant based fats are very healthy along with fish based fats and can actually lower bad cholesterol. We know that whole grains in their whole format are very good for us and that refined grains in the form of highly refined flours are not good for us. We know that a diet that is at least 50% based on vegetables and leafy, green and multicolored is what our bodies are best equipped to use to provide the bulk of our nutrients. We know that supplementally things like fruits, beans and nuts are all very healthy items in moderation. This is not all that new information, but you won't hear it from the media or the food manufacturers' because most of what is good for us doesn't come in a box or a bag. It is no longer real food at that point.

Michael Pollan in one of his brilliant essays on the rise of nutritionism sums it up like this:
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." source: Unhappy Meals - Michael Pollan - New York Times (a long but very good read btw.)

SB guidelines are a little more expansive than that, but it's still a good quick message.

I was thinking more about how to describe SB though and what I came up with was more along the lines of this if you didn't care for what I wrote before (and apparently you didn't! )

Originally Posted by RedRox

SB is a flexible lifestyle change program that teaches you through an experiential process how to create a healthy balanced dietary program that includes healthy fats, lean proteins and slow burning carbohydrates in appropriate quantities to support your body's needs, health and chosen activity levels.

That's about 45 words. If I got a little more time and space I would emphasize that:

SB does not eliminate any important food groups and instead focuses on learning to intelligently discriminate within any main food category, which specific foods promote our overall health and which do not and focuses on creating life long eating patterns for weight management for each individual based on their own specific situations.

I really think that is the key to SB eating. We learn that there are healthy protein sources and unhealthy protein sources, healthy fats and unhealthy fats and healthy carbohydrates and unhealthy carbohydrates. It doesn't seek to particularly limit or omit any major macronutrient category, but teaches us within each category which ones optimize our nutritional intake for the overall calories consumed and that real nutrition comes from real foods, not bars, shakes and supplements and gimmicks.

And to respond to a couple of your points specifically:

No fruits or starches in P1. One of the big problems I have with P1 is that it typically sends the wrong message to long term success IMO. People remove a portion of the healthy carbohydrate sources, deplete their glycogen stores, lose a lot of water weight (but probably not much actual fat loss) and then the message that "carbs are the problem" is reinforced when nothing could be further from the truth. There is a reason P1 is only supposed to last two weeks and includes other healthy sources of carbs like dairy, beans and a minimum of 4.5 cups of veggies. The reason is that it is an unhealthy eating plan for longer than that time period and Dr. A understands this. P1's real purpose is not weight loss, but leveling out blood sugars and getting hunger pangs caused by insulin spikes and drops under control. But again, the marketer's of SB (Rodale Publishing) chose to put the "lose 8-13 lbs in 2 weeks" on the cover and that is what everyone tends to focus on because we want a "2 week diet", not a lifestyle change program, which again is the only thing that works and the only thing that has ever worked. The fact that there is no fruit in P1 is not an indictment against fruits. It's just counterproductive to the primary P1 goals of normalizing blood sugar levels and getting hunger pangs under control. The fact that we learn to discriminate between higher and lower GI/GL fruits is just part of the SB process of learning to discriminate between healthier and unhealthier options in each category. It's not that ALL fruits are unhealthy in some way, it's just that some fruits will restart/kick in that insulin response cycle and food based hunger pangs and others will limit that effect (esp. when combined with fats, protein, fiber or acids) and keep our blood sugars on a more even keel. Again it's a learning process to learn to discriminate what works for each of us and what doesn't in regards to this and the only way to do that is to actually go through that experiential process for yourself because everyone is different.

And your choice of the 50s for the orange juice example is kind of telling because post-WWII is when things really started getting out of whack dietarily speaking in this country. It's not so much that OJ is really that unhealthy, but it's more that the whole orange before it is processed and preserved and stuck in a carton to promote long term shelf life is a lot better for us. (and even mangoes and pineapples are fine on an occasional basis. It's all about moderation, not restriction!) It was when we started replacing real foods in our diets with a lot more processed foods and convenience foods and the family dinner became a car load through the drive-in rather than real food cooked at home. That's when we started giving up control of our foods to others who do not have our health motive as their primary motive. Only we have that motive for ourselves and it is up to us to take that control back. IMO, SB allows us to do that if we want to. It's rather empowering that way actually IMO.