Is the South Beach Diet something that vegetarians might consider? Is there anything in this latest diet craze in the United States that is even worth considering? The average vegetarian is generally much less worried about losing weight than is the rest of the population. However, there are vegetarians who might feel the need to add a diet component to their eating pattern as well - and as more than 5 million copies of the book about the South Beach Diet have flown off the booksellers' shelves, should vegetarians be considering it?

One of the reasons the diet is popular because that it promises quick results - a weight loss of up to 13 lb in just 14 days! And if you're going to look at the advantages and disadvantages of the South Beach Diet, that is the first disadvantage. Many dieticians and nutritionists are extremely wary of such rapid weight-loss. The generally accepted desirable figure is 2 lb a week - a huge difference. The South Beach Diet was developed by Dr Agatston, an American cardiologist, for his heart patients. While his primary objective was to improve heart health, he found that as a side benefit his patients also lost a lot of weight.

Dr Agatston doesn't favour either the low-carb or the low-fat route - he says that the South Beach diet is based on eating the "right" carbohydrates and the "right" fats. In reality his diet pays a lot of attention to the Glycaemic Index, which in theory is good for vegetarians and diabetics alike - but his "phased" approach provides the second disadvantage, at least for the stricter variety of vegetarian. There are three phases in the South Beach Diet.

In Phase 1 the intake of carbohydrates is extremely low; the major focus is on eating fish, chicken, lean meat, eggs, low-fat cheese, some nuts and olive oil - so problems right there for vegans, ovo-lacto and ovo vegetarians.

Phase 2 is a lot easier for vegetarians - the focus now is on low GI carbohydrates, including most fruits, whole-grain bread, wholegrain cereals, pasta and low-fat milk, beans and even red wine. Dieters are told to stay away from baked goods made from refined wheat, some vegetables (potatoes, beets, carrots) and some fruits (bananas, pineapple and watermelon).

Phase 3 is even easier to follow; the theory is now that you "have changed your eating habits" (not exactly news to vegetarians) and have adopted an eating pattern that you can use for the rest of your life. If your weight starts to climb again, back you go to Phase 2. So in summary:

The good is that the diet steers you away from saturated fats to monosaturated (such as olive oil), emphasises whole-wheat products (in Phase 2), avoids carbohydrates rich in sugar, and stresses vegetables and fruits low in sugar. You don't have to starve or fast, and as would be expected from a cardiologist, the whole approach is good for heart health. The diet is a sensible one; it does not eliminate any of the major food groups, there are no limits on portion size, you don't have to count calories, it recommends lots of fruit and vegetables, and in general is in step with the principles of healthy eating.

The not so good is the endorsement of synthetic and other margarines (which are loaded with trans fats) rather than butter (which is the healthier option), the very low level of carbohydrates allowed in Phase 1, and for anyone but a semi-vegetarian, the emphasis on lean meat in the beginning. Some experts even think that the rapid weight loss in the first two weeks is caused by water loss through the reduced carbohydrate intake rather than genuine weight loss, and that the weight is regained once you move to a more normal diet, in Phase 2.

On balance, the diet is probably only worth considering by semi-vegetarians, particularly if they start at Phase 2 rather than Phase 1 - and if you have vegetarian instincts anyway, you probably won't need to "discipline" your body the way a non-vegetarian starting the South Beach Diet would.