Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / July 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Kimkins?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
em - 25 Jul 2007 19:53 GMT
Any truth/validity to Kimkins? Is it all that great? It seems to be a highly
restricted version of old-school Atkins/Stillman. There are some pretty big
claims made and quite a bit of press.

There's soooo much crap on the Internet, and this lady doesn't have any
qualifications other than "I lost weight". I would normally ignore this kind
of thing, but the name keeps coming up.
Roger Zoul - 25 Jul 2007 20:18 GMT
:: Any truth/validity to Kimkins? Is it all that great? It seems to be
:: a highly restricted version of old-school Atkins/Stillman. There are
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
:: any qualifications other than "I lost weight". I would normally
:: ignore this kind of thing, but the name keeps coming up.

The best approach is to keep ignoring it.
jackiepatti@gmail.com - 26 Jul 2007 21:51 GMT
I recently read SugarBusters and was kinda blown away by how stupid I
thought the program was - used to be a lot of folks here doing it and
I never knew what it was.  I can't write a review of that cause I
already tossed the book.  But I have gotten curious about what low-
carb plans I'm unfamilair with consist of, so I figured I'd look at
Kimmer's thang and am writing a review.

You can't find out what the plan is from her website unless you join.
If you're a joiner, it's a good deal though - we're talking under $60
for a lifetime membership.  Of the diet plans that you have to join,
you can't get a better deal than that.  And I think you get a LOT of
emotional support for that $60, so if you need that, it could be a
good thing.

There's no book as of yet.  However, you can find out what her plan is
by going to the forum at lowcarbfriends.com where she was a long-time
poster and a bit of a guru to a lot of the folks there.  Kimmer
believed in old-style Atkins, meaning you don't subtract fiber or
sugar alcohols and don't eat frankenfoods.  She is also a fan of the
Stillman Diet as well as the original Atkins.  Although I'd say what
her diet mostly consists of is lots of handholding by Kimmer.  She is
BIG on the emotional support thang.

She "modified" Atkins to a degree in that she chose only lean meats
and just enough fat to make food edible and pretty much cut out dairy,
nuts and nut butters, etc.   So on the one hand, it is sort of a low-
fat Atkins plan.  On the other hand, the carbs are so low that it's
still more than 50% of calories from fat.  Basically, it's a calorie-
restricted version of Atkins induction, quite a lot of the folks doing
it are under 1000 calories/day.  It's kinda what JC is always posting
around here (but she is a hell of a lot nicer than he is).

The more traditional low-carbers said she wasn't doing Atkins at all,
and one of them named what she was doing "Kimkins" instead and that's
where the name came from.  She lost 160 lbs in 7 months while
untreated for a serious thyroid condition and without exercise.  This
is why she is a "guru" to folks.  She didn't seem to ruin her
metabolism eating low calorie.  First off, it was already kinda ruined
what with the thyroid problems.  And second, in maintenance, she eats
under 100g carb/day at a calorie level 10-12X her current weight.  Not
exactly starvation rations.

I think the main thing she does is provide support for people.  I
mean, 50 people would post messages asking her to look at their
Fitdays and asking advice, and she'd answer ALL of them.  She'd answer
the same stupid questions again and again, I dunno where she gets the
patience.  If you need a lot of handholding to stick to a plan,
Kimmer's would probably be a good plan for you.  She's ALL about lotsa
emotional support.

It's not a WOE, but a weight-loss diet.  She thinks it's a hell of a
lot more motivating to lose 3-5 lbs/week instead of 1-2.  Basically,
that is her plan in a nutshell... lose weight fast.  I don't know if
her website has a maintenance plan built-in, but from what I can see
over on the forum, if you did her diet, you'd pretty much need a
separate maintenance plan once you reached goal.  I think you'd pretty
much need to know how to low-carb and maintain before you began her
plan else you'd just put it all back on.

She is big on making sure you actually measure everything, know what a
TB of salad dressing really looks like, and enter everything in
Fitday.  She's also big on taking a multivitamin daily and getting
your veggies.  She admonishes some folks that 1/2 cup of low-carb
veggies is only three bites, how can you not eat that?  She thinks
planning is important, plasnning shopping, planning meals, planning
what to do if you have cravings, etc.  The only "dessert" type foods
allowed are popsicles made from Crystal Light or diet soda or snow
cones made with DaVinci syrups.  No low-carb cheesecake.

The anti-Kimmer contingent felt the calories were too low, starvation
mode would happen and that she was encouraging eating disorders.
There is a section of the forum devoted to fasting and Kimmer herself
felt that weekend fasting was a good thing, though it doesn't seem to
be part of her own plan. Some of the anti-Kimmer contingent think that
the before and after pics of her and her followers are faked, but they
kinda sound like sour grapes.

The people on the forum were split into two camps - either for her or
against her.  She became a bone of contention there.  Someone offered
to help her set up her own web site.  Of course, this is a big
criticism against her too - that she was in it for the bucks all
along.  But... she was posting for several hours a day for a couple
years with no idea she'd attract followers and wind up with a
business, so I find that kind of hard to swallow.

She seems genuinely sweet to me.  Not that I like her much, she's
kinda sickeningly sweet.  But a lot of the criticism seems kinda
bogus.  One of the major criticisms is her plan isn't doctor-
supervised... as if you need an MD to give advice on diet.  She says
straightup that her plan is to maximize weight loss, that it's not a
WOE, and that you need to do something else for maintenance.  The
point is ketosis for appetite supression then low calories to maximize
weight loss - along with lotsa hand-holding.

Her first "plan" is what she calls Kimmer's Experiment.  Basically, it
is a test to see if you are really in ketosis or if you still have
some stores of glycogen left.  You eat nothing but lean meat and eggs
for 3-5 days and see if you get a big water weight loss.  So the idea
is... if you get a big water woosh from doing the experiment, you were
eating too many carbs for really efficient weight loss.

Her experiment is pretty much similar to a protein-sparing modified
fast, which is a medical plan they put you on if you have to lose
weight fast like prior to surgery or something.
http://www.drblythe.com/weightloss/chptr6txt.htm describes a protein-
sparing modified fast.  The difference with her experiment is she
doesn't allow cheese.

Used to be some folks around here would do something similar, but they
called it a "meat fast" - it was recommended for breaking stalls.  If
your carbs have crept up and you have glycogen stores, it makes sense
that this would break stalls.

In Kimmer's Experiment, you can eat as much as you want because you're
looking for what she calls "deep ketosis" which supresses appetite.
She recommends the experiment as sort of a pre-induction induction.

Her ongoing plan, Kimkins, is basically Atkins induction with minimal
calories.  Basically, you add some veggies to the experiment "phase".
Never eat unless you're hungry, and if in "deep ketosis", you're not
hungry much.  From what I can see, it looks like people tend to eat
700-1000 calories or so on her plan.

She also recommends for fastest loss to fast every weekend.  That does
not seem to be part of her main plan though; she recommends lots of
links to other people's fasting experience.  Maybe this is why she's
controversial, cause she suggests to not eat at all a couple days a
week if you don't find it too unpleasant to do.

In short, while I'm not terribly fond of her plan or her, the anti-
Kimmer folk seem kinda irrationally combatative.  The objections don't
make a heck of a lot of sense.  If you don't want to do what she does,
then don't.  No biggie.

Frankly, I can't really see either the worship of her fans or the
vehemence of her enemies.  Like... whatever.

Some basic definitions for her plan:
    lean meats -
        beef (trim all visible fat before cooking): round, loin or chuck
cuts, 85% or better ground beef
        pork (trim all visible fat before cooking): canadian bacon, center
loin chop, ham, leg steak, tenderloin cuts
        poultry: unbreaded with skin removed
        fish & seafood: unbreaded fresh or frozen, water-packed if canned

    salad veggies (2 cups/day) - lettuces, cabbage, cucumbers, tomatoes,
celery, mushrooms, green onions, asparagus, garlic, radishes, green
beans, peppers

    other low-carb veggies (limited to 1/2 cup serving) - zucchini,
cauliflower, tomatoes, green beans, broccoli, turnips and round
onions

Here's the guidelines for the Kimmer Experiment (K/E):
   * Length of time is 3-5 days depending on how 'carbed up' you are
   * As much lean protein as you desire (lean meat and eggs only)
   * No "junk" meats: hot dogs, pepperoni, etc.
   * Unlimited diet drinks, plain coffee & tea (plain as in no cream,
half/half)
   * No alcohol, no cheese
   * No cream, butter, mayo, cheese or other extra fats (for example,
instead of butter, trying cooking with PAM)
   * Unlimited use of artificial sweeteners
   * Purpose is to experience 'real' ketosis (weight loss, no
appetite)
   * Useful as a springboard for other LC programs
   * Basic condiments and spices OK (watch catsup & A1 sauce)
   * If you lose 3 or more lbs. in 3 days, then you were over on
carbs on previous diet.

For the Kimkin's diet, you add to the K/E some veggies:
   * Up to 20 total carbs (not 'net')
   * Up to 3 cups salad type veggies or
   * Up to 2 cups salad veggies + .5 cup 'cooked'
   * 70-90 grams lean protein.
   * No dairy, no nuts.
   * No LC products, treats, junk or alcohol
   * Just enough fat to make your menu work (don't overdo)
   * It's important to measure veggies. One cup of lettuce is a
small, loose handful. Watch the salad dressing! Better yet, use a low
calorie one.
   * Keep TOTAL carbs 20 or under-do not subtract fiber or Sugar
Alcohols
   * No frankenfoods.

If you wanna try her plan and don't need a lot of handholding, I just
saved you $60.
BlueBrooke - 26 Jul 2007 22:23 GMT
>The anti-Kimmer contingent felt the calories were too low, starvation
>mode would happen and that she was encouraging eating disorders.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>the before and after pics of her and her followers are faked, but they
>kinda sound like sour grapes.

Hi, Jackie --

Thanks for the great post.  

I read her posts about fasting, and I just wanted to throw in here
that she fasts one weekend a month (while her son is away).  As I
understand her goal here, the purpose of the fast wasn't so much to
contribute to weight loss -- she said what she does lose during the
weekend, she gains back immediately on Monday or Tuesday.  It was a
"girlie weekend" -- writing letters, reading, doing her nails -- she
just didn't eat.  She used the weekend to recharge spiritually and
physically -- something that sounds pretty darn good to me!  LOL!  

Anyway, I'm not a Kimmer advocate, or one of her detractors -- I had
just started reading that board after she left and went back through
the old posts to try to figure out what the big deal was -- and
apparently it was quite a big deal.  

HTH

Signature

BlueBrooke
254/233/135

Doug Freyburger - 27 Jul 2007 21:29 GMT
> jackiepa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Thanks for the great post.

Agreed.  Excellent review, thank you.

> I read her posts about fasting, and I just wanted to throw in here
> that she fasts one weekend a month (while her son is away).  As I
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> just didn't eat.  She used the weekend to recharge spiritually and
> physically -- something that sounds pretty darn good to me!

Fasting for spiritual reasons isn't a bad idea as long as you are
well removed from eating disorders.  Also I've been reading about
longevity experiments in animals recently and I wonder if occasional
fasting might be beneficial for longevity as long as it isn't driven
to
starvation.

If habitual overeating is a problem, occasional fasting can help
shrink the stomach and might help break the habit?
em - 27 Jul 2007 22:06 GMT
> Fasting for spiritual reasons isn't a bad idea as long as you are
> well removed from eating disorders.

I'm not orthodox myself, but sometimes I go to an O synagogue. There are
several days where people fast each year, and I've never heard of any health
related complications. I have to think that fasting for a day or two is not
harmful.

> Also I've been reading about
> longevity experiments in animals recently and I wonder if occasional
> fasting might be beneficial for longevity as long as it isn't driven
> to
> starvation.

I imagine that a lot of animals in the wild don't eat on days when they
don't catch anything. I've been thinking about doing a 24-hour fast myself
but haven't set a date or anything like that.

> If habitual overeating is a problem, occasional fasting can help
> shrink the stomach and might help break the habit?

That's exactly what I was thinking, but my appitite seems totally under
control since I started low-carbing. I'm still keeping the thought of a
short fast in the back of my mind, but don't know if I'm going to go there
unless things start to go awry. I don't like it, but have to live with the
fact that the weight comes off slooooly...
BlueBrooke - 27 Jul 2007 23:07 GMT
>> jackiepa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>If habitual overeating is a problem, occasional fasting can help
>shrink the stomach and might help break the habit?

Hi, Doug --

I don't know if this is true or not, but I don't think a one or two
day fast would make that much difference on this score.  That's just a
guess and a YMMV kind of thing.  

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with fasting, though I don't do
it myself.  I don't have much more than a few hours where my son isn't
here.  Since he's a typical teenager who thinks he's dying if he
hasn't eaten in the past hour, he's constantly in the kitchen fixing
up some kind of goodie.  My resolve wouldn't stand that strain.  :-)

Since he's 6'4" and about 150 pounds, I don't worry too much about his
consumption of mass quantities -- especially since it's meat, cheese,
fruits and veggies.  

Anyway -- I have picked up quite a few books on fasting since I would
like to do it occasionally if the opportunity presents itself.  It
makes perfect sense to me.  I've never gone in for the "you must eat
every four hours to maintain nutrients" -- I think our bodies are
smarter than that.  Especially for someone who is overweight, I think
we're carrying our nutients around with us!  <g>  

You don't just get up one morning and decide you aren't going to eat
-- not if you're doing it "right" anyway.  You prepare for the fast
and you prepare to come out of the fast as well.  For the purposes of
physical rest and cleansing, the idea is to give the body a break --
not to shock it into submission.  ;-)  

As far as the experiments with animals, it really doesn't surprise me
at all.  Animals in the wild can't run off to the grocery store when
the pantry is bare, and they seem to be okay.  As far as I am aware
(and I'm sure someone here knows better than I), humans and their
domesticated companions are the only creatures I know of who eat
themselves into obesity, barring other physiological disorders.  

Fasting wouldn't be for everyone, and I can imagine the first few days
would be very difficult, especially if one jumping is off of the SAD
without preparation.  I think if one were experiencing the effects of
ketosis, it would help with the initial hunger pangs.  But too often
the word "fast" results in such a dramatic knee jerk reaction that I
don't think is warranted.  

Signature

BlueBrooke
254/233/135

em - 27 Jul 2007 01:54 GMT
Hi Jackie,

I recently switched from low-cal to low-carb and have two days left of the
two-week induction. I haven't lost any more, so far anyway, then I would
have if I had stuck with low-cal. I was expecting a little whoosh from the
water weight or something, but nope, I'm only down two pounds after almost
two weeks.

I know, for sure, that I am right in there with the carb count. I'm not
missing any hidden carbs in my counting, etc. More than anything else, I
could really use a nice little ego boost -- this has been a real long haul
for me.

I'm going to stick out induction through Sunday and see where things stand.
If I magically drop some weight, great. If I don't, I'm going to look at
what my options are. My options appear to be Kimkins
Experiment/Stillman's/Meat Fast/Protein Sparing, etc.

Thanks for all the info!
jackiepatti@gmail.com - 27 Jul 2007 03:16 GMT
> I'm going to stick out induction through Sunday and see where things stand.
> If I magically drop some weight, great. If I don't, I'm going to look at
> what my options are. My options appear to be Kimkins
> Experiment/Stillman's/Meat Fast/Protein Sparing, etc.

If you try it, let us know how it works for you.

It'd be nice to hear from someone who wasn't part of the Kimmer-cult
or Kimmer-haters.  Someone a bit more neutral.
Roger Zoul - 27 Jul 2007 03:59 GMT
:: On Jul 26, 7:54 pm, "em" <i...@dun.no> wrote:
::
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
:: It'd be nice to hear from someone who wasn't part of the Kimmer-cult
:: or Kimmer-haters.  Someone a bit more neutral.

2phat? Isn't there some drug injections, too?
jackiepatti@gmail.com - 27 Jul 2007 08:31 GMT
> 2phat? Isn't there some drug injections, too?

I think you're thinking of another plan.

I read... maybe 60 pages of an "Ask Kimmer" thread on
lowcarbfriends.com and the only drugs I ever saw her mention were
epsom salts and/or fiber pills for constipation and a side-
conversation about retin-A for wrinkle-reduction.

It could take *days* to read all her posts on lowcarbfriends.com, and
of course I'm not giving anybody $60 just to see their website, so my
review is likely as complete as it's gonna get.  I posted it mostly
because I'm a neutral party and I thought that might be interesting
given that there seem to be so few reviews that don't either gush or
bash.

I also read some of the thread Tom G. posted.  I had previously read
the first few pages of it, and frankly, at the beginning, it looked
mostly like a bunch of whiners.  But I skipped some pages and jumped
ahead and it gets more intriguing as it goes on.  A lot of the anti-
Kimmer contingent in that thread were previously pro-Kimmer people.
So apparently, she pissed an awful lot of people off.

Anyone looking to spend a few days watching a soap opera unfold...
Kimmer is it!
Roger Zoul - 27 Jul 2007 09:22 GMT
:: On Jul 26, 9:59 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
::
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
:: Anyone looking to spend a few days watching a soap opera unfold...
:: Kimmer is it!

2phat posts here sometimes....in fact, she posted a message not too long
ago....

But she was interested/using kimkins and some other drug, I believe...IIRC.
jackiepatti@gmail.com - 27 Jul 2007 10:15 GMT
> 2phat posts here sometimes....in fact, she posted a message not too long
> ago....
>
> But she was interested/using kimkins and some other drug, I believe...IIRC.

I vaguely remember 2phat; I think I skipped most of those threads.
Wasn't it some extract from pregnant women's urine or something?

Anyways, that has nothing to do with the Kimkins plan as far as I can
tell.

The plan itself is like a lowered-fat Atkin's induction, or Stillman's
or the protein-sparing modified fast minus the cheese.  Not that I
think those are ideal diets, but they don't seem controversial
*within* the low-carb community the way Kimkins is; they're only
controversial when you get into the low-fat crowd.

Kimkins seems controversial mostly because Kimmer is controversial.
Looks like a cult-of-personality type of thing to me.

It's really quite weird.  People gush about her like she's the
messiah, or hate her like she's the devil incarnate.  And some switch
from one to the other.  It's like a religious thang.  Very weird.
Roger Zoul - 27 Jul 2007 10:46 GMT
:: On Jul 27, 3:22 am, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
::
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
:: I vaguely remember 2phat; I think I skipped most of those threads.
:: Wasn't it some extract from pregnant women's urine or something?

Yes, that's it. I thought the two somehow went together.

:: Anyways, that has nothing to do with the Kimkins plan as far as I can
:: tell.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
:: Kimkins seems controversial mostly because Kimmer is controversial.
:: Looks like a cult-of-personality type of thing to me.

Well, Kimkins is a diet of last resort, right?  After the radical diets like
Atkins don't work, you switch over to low everything! Low fat, low carb, and
low calorie.  Seems like the right idea, right!? :)

:: It's really quite weird.  People gush about her like she's the
:: messiah, or hate her like she's the devil incarnate.  And some switch
:: from one to the other.  It's like a religious thang.  Very weird.

For some it must work, so they sing songs of praise.  For those who don't
like to starve or the thought of getting others to strave, the obvious
response is hate.
BlueBrooke - 27 Jul 2007 20:12 GMT
>I also read some of the thread Tom G. posted.  I had previously read
>the first few pages of it, and frankly, at the beginning, it looked
>mostly like a bunch of whiners.  But I skipped some pages and jumped
>ahead and it gets more intriguing as it goes on.  A lot of the anti-
>Kimmer contingent in that thread were previously pro-Kimmer people.
>So apparently, she pissed an awful lot of people off.

I read some of that thread, too.  Lots of questions which aren't being
answered -- and lots of speculation.  

The thing that had me literally laughing out loud was the fact that
the thread is still there.  At this writing it is now 193 pages!  And
even the posters realize that the conversation is marginal as far as
the LCF TOS is concerned -- several times they have thanked the mods
for not shutting it down.  

"Mean-spirited" posts are supposedly not allowed, but it appears that
they *are* acceptable if you're talking about someone who isn't there.
Sometimes it looks like, with the cat looking the other way, some of
the mice are having a grand time taking pot shots that wouldn't
ordinarily be allowed.  Although it does appear that "Kimmer" is
following that thread herself -- just not posting to it -- and culling
the undesireables from her neck of the woods based on their statements
on LCF.  

There are a lot of very valid questions being asked there -- over and
over and over -- and it appears that "Kimmer" is only digging herself
in deeper by her refusal to behave like a responsible adult.  But
there is also much wailing and gnashing of teeth as regards freedom of
speech and privacy -- and the fact that LCF isn't a bastion of free
speech itself seems to be lost on all but a few of the posters there.

The "Kimmer" supporters seem to be shell shocked -- those that venture
from her insulated playground, anyway --  and her detractors are
rubbing their hands in glee.  The rationale seems to be that they are
"supporting" the people who have been deceived by "Kimmer."  

Signature

BlueBrooke
254/233/135

Hollywood - 27 Jul 2007 13:36 GMT
> jackiepa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> 2phat? Isn't there some drug injections, too?

That was this poster who KF'ed everyone who gave her advice rather
than cheerleading.
She wanted to inject some hormones to lose weight and kill her hunger
because she wanted it off fast. I suggested Kimkins. She did it for a
month and went on to injectable hormones. Kimkins and injectable
hormones don't share space.

FWIW: I like my diet to come from someone with some clinical
experience with getting people to lose weight. And I like to read it
in a book rather than a website. So, not a Kimkins person. Curious
about the veil of anonymity around her, but like everyone says, just
cause it's out there doesn't mean I have to do it, or even try it, or
even hold an opinion.
wifezilla@gmail.com - 27 Jul 2007 16:46 GMT
"While I saw lots of people claiming she said these things, I never
saw
her say them. "

These are things she was sending in private messages as part of her
ongoing "support". I was very interested in Kimmer at first, and even
bought the copy of Women's World with her in it. Then I started doing
research.

My conclusion is she is someone who is making a lot of money off of
vulnerable people. I have nothing against making money, but when you
are making money off of your weight loss and then refuse to release
evidence that the photos you are showing the public are really
you...well, then you are just a fraud.

Instead of giving her $60, find a copy of Atkins 72 or Stillmans. That
is basically what her plan is anyway, but without the epson salts,
starvation or other dangerous activities.
Doug Freyburger - 27 Jul 2007 21:10 GMT
> I recently switched from low-cal to low-carb and have two days left of the
> two-week induction. I haven't lost any more, so far anyway, then I would
> have if I had stuck with low-cal. I was expecting a little whoosh from the
> water weight or something,

Folks coming to low carb from no other plan can expect a
water whoosh.  Folks coming to low carb from a high carb
plan can expect a water whoosh.  Folks coming from a
low calorie plan generally can't expect a water whoosh.
Low calorie causes water loss.

> but nope, I'm only down two pounds after almost
> two weeks.

Reality check - A pound a week is a fast loss rate.  If you
aren't satisfied with a fast loss rate there isn't going to be
anything healthy you can do to yourself that will satisfy
you.  Please adjust your expectations not do something
radical in response to success.

> I'm going to stick out induction through Sunday and see where things stand.
> If I magically drop some weight, great.

You *did* magically lose weight.

> If I don't, I'm going to look at
> what my options are. My options appear to be Kimkins
> Experiment/Stillman's/Meat Fast/Protein Sparing, etc.
>
> Thanks for all the info!
em - 27 Jul 2007 22:17 GMT
>> I recently switched from low-cal to low-carb and have two days left of
>> the
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> low calorie plan generally can't expect a water whoosh.
> Low calorie causes water loss.

[sigh]

Well, eating low-carb is one f-of-a-lot easier than low-cal. If I don't get
the whoosh, I'm still on a diet plan that is better for me personally.

>> but nope, I'm only down two pounds after almost
>> two weeks.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> you.  Please adjust your expectations not do something
> radical in response to success.

I had always thought that 1-2 pounds per week, for a big guy, was an average
rate, and that I was on the low end of average.

I don't plan on doing anything rash or radical. Can't afford surgery, not
planning a fast (but thinking about a one-day fast, maybe), not going to
start a celery diet or anything like that.

Its just, damn, in Nov of 05 I was 298 pounds. I yo-yo'd a bit before I got
my sh.t together. As of this morning I am 248 pounds. Fifty pounds!! Hell
yes! I know I signed up for the long haul by deciding to eat differently,
but wow, it is just so slow going. I really was hoping for that magical
ten-pound drop to kind of pick up my spirit. But... on from here I shall go!
jackiepatti@gmail.com - 27 Jul 2007 23:00 GMT
> Its just, damn, in Nov of 05 I was 298 pounds. I yo-yo'd a bit before I got
> my sh.t together. As of this morning I am 248 pounds. Fifty pounds!! Hell
> yes! I know I signed up for the long haul by deciding to eat differently,
> but wow, it is just so slow going. I really was hoping for that magical
> ten-pound drop to kind of pick up my spirit. But... on from here I shall go!

I am of the opinion that if you are going in the right direction, no
matter your speed, you will get to your goal.

I personally put a lot more stock in Saffire's tips than in Kimmer's
writings.  Part of the reason for that is because Saffire did lose
slowly; someone who sticks it out even when it's not easy is a hell of
a lot more inspiring to me than someone cheerleading how easy it is -
especially on the days when it's NOT easy.

I think the other problem with Kimkins is that while it may cause you
to lose a lot of weight fast, there is nothing in there that teaches
you how to eat right so that it doesn't come back.  People have lost
weight on ANY number of diets.  It's maintaining that is the trickier
part.

If you already know how to low-carb for the long-term, using Kimkins
or another extreme plan to knock off a few pounds fast or to break a
stall wouldn't be bad, unless you're prone to eating disorders.

But if you don't know how to maintain, Kimkins is just another cycle
on the yo-yo dieting thang.
Doug Freyburger - 28 Jul 2007 16:31 GMT
jackiepa...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Its just, damn, in Nov of 05 I was 298 pounds. I yo-yo'd a bit before I got
> > my sh.t together. As of this morning I am 248 pounds. Fifty pounds!! Hell
> > yes! I know I signed up for the long haul by deciding to eat differently,
> > but wow, it is just so slow going. I really was hoping for that magical
> > ten-pound drop to kind of pick up my spirit. But... on from here I shall go!

Something I've tracked over the years is who thinks they have
"a lot to lose" and who does how well per how much they have
left to lose.  I've seen folks under their ideal weight claim they
have a lot to lose, so clearly it doesn't work to decide it for
yourself based on desires.  All that shows is current motivation.
Watch for a while and nearly everyone who loses at 2 pounds
per month still has 100+ to go.  After there's 100- to lose that
rate tends to take extremist actions.  While there's still 100+
to go even mild actions seem to cause the pounds to drop.
So I use that 100+ barrier for a reason based on this
anecdotal evidence.

You are no longer in the range where pounds melt off at
2 per week by doing healthy actions.  You are in the range
where pounds melt off at 1 per week by doing healthy
actions.  More to lose, faster to lose it; less to lose, slower
to lose it - I don't think there's been a dieter in history happy
with that but it's an extremely clear trend.  Please, take this
progress as a victory because that's what it is.  You achieved
much with lots of work on low calorie.  Now you are
achieving the equivalent with less work on low carb.  That's
an additional victory.

> I am of the opinion that if you are going in the right direction, no
> matter your speed, you will get to your goal.

No one is ever happy with their own speed and because the
loss rate drops with progress even adjusting expectations
tends to fall behind progress.  But progress is real no
matter that no one ever seems happy with their own rate.

> I personally put a lot more stock in Saffire's tips than in Kimmer's
> writings.

Saffire's weekly advice posting may be the best low carb
ever written based on content per word.

> Part of the reason for that is because Saffire did lose
> slowly; someone who sticks it out even when it's not easy is a hell of
> a lot more inspiring to me than someone cheerleading how easy it is -
> especially on the days when it's NOT easy.

And because she maintains well year after year.

> I think the other problem with Kimkins is that while it may cause you
> to lose a lot of weight fast, there is nothing in there that teaches
> you how to eat right so that it doesn't come back.  People have lost
> weight on ANY number of diets.  It's maintaining that is the trickier
> part.

That's the ASDLC mantra and it's why I think the support on
ASDLC is superior to the support elsewhere.

> If you already know how to low-carb for the long-term, using Kimkins
> or another extreme plan to knock off a few pounds fast or to break a
> stall wouldn't be bad, unless you're prone to eating disorders.
>
> But if you don't know how to maintain, Kimkins is just another cycle
> on the yo-yo dieting thang.
em - 28 Jul 2007 20:09 GMT
> jackiepa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> So I use that 100+ barrier for a reason based on this
> anecdotal evidence.

I want to say that you are 100% right and that I agree with what you're
saying. Still, though, I am going to bust my a.s and try to lose the weight
at a little higher rate then 1#/week. I won't be doing any weird/crazy diets
though -- just trying to eat a bit less and exercise a little more.

My two week induction results are tomorrow, and I'll post a little "where I
want to go from here" post as a reality check.

Thanks! I really appreciate the time you (and everyone else) takes to post &
advise.
Doug Freyburger - 31 Jul 2007 16:45 GMT
> I recently switched from low-cal to low-carb and have two days left of the
> two-week induction. I haven't lost any more, so far anyway, then I would
> have if I had stuck with low-cal. I was expecting a little whoosh from the
> water weight or something, but nope, I'm only down two pounds after almost
> two weeks.

Yet at the end your loss was 8.  I used to post that no weighing
internal to Induction has any meaning whatsoever because
exact weight bounces wildly within Induction.  Sorry I forgot to
post that this time, but your result is the reason why I used to
post it.
Tom G. - 27 Jul 2007 02:09 GMT
> Some of the anti-Kimmer contingent think that
> the before and after pics of her and her followers are faked, but they
> kinda sound like sour grapes.

 Some say she refuses to give a face to face interview, and has only talked
to people on the phone. 'Could be a privacy issue. Or maybe she isn't who
she claims to be.

  http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/kimkins/502606-why-fascination-kimmer.html
jackiepatti@gmail.com - 27 Jul 2007 23:02 GMT
I have a bit more actual information, as opposed to my speculations
about the gossip.  This is supposed to be what the diet on the $60
website consists of; the stuff I posted previously was her plan when
she was giving it away for free on lowcarbfriends.com.

So now I've *really* saved anyone who wants to do it $60!  The main
differences seem to be the "boot camp" thing which requires some
exercise and a plan customized for vegetarians.

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************
KIMKINS DIET
The original Kimkins Diet

As much lean protein as desired from the Kimkins Food List*
0-20 total carbs per day(no fiber or sugar alcohol subtraction)
0-3 cups List 1** veggies per day OR
0-2 cups List 1 veggies + 0-1 cup List 2*** veggies per day
Use minimal fat to make your menu work (careful, calories count!)
No alcohol or low carb products (sugar free candy, energy bars, ice
cream, frozen meals)
Your appetite will reduce naturally after 3-5 days
Take a complete multivitamin each day plus other desired supplements

KIMMER EXPERIMENT (K/E)
K/E is used to reach ketosis quickly or as a jumpstart for other
Kimkins Options

As much lean protein as desired from the Kimkins Food List
Minimal low-carb condiments and spices may be used sparingly
No alcohol, no cheese, no fatty meats, no fats, no veggies
Your appetite will drop naturally after 3-5 days
Take a complete multivitamin each day plus other desired supplements
You may remain on K/E as long as desired

KIMKINS BOOT CAMP
The most popular Kimkins Option!
30 minutes of intense daily exercies required

Breakfast
Up to 2 eggs (cooked without fat)
Up to 1/2 cup List 2 veggies
Up to 2 oz lean ham or other lean protein (raw/cured weight)
Unlimited non-calorie beverage

Lunch
Up to 4 oz lean protein (raw weight)
Up to 2 cups mixed greens + Wishbone Spritzer dressing (or caloric
equivalent)
Unlimited non-calorie beverage

Dinner
Up to 4 oz lean protein (raw weight)
Up to 2 cups mixed greens + Wishbone Spritzer dressing (or caloric
equivalent)
Unlimited non-calorie beverage

Take a complete multivitamin each day plus other desired supplements

VEGETARIAN OPTION
Vegetarian products have higher carbs so a calorie limit is suggested
Aim for no more than 1000 calories per day

Daily Limits

0-20 total carbs from all sources, no fiber subtraction
0-3 servings of protein substitutes including tofu, eggs, egg
substitutes, protein powders
0-2 servings of higher carb choices including tempeh, Gardenburger and
Boca products
0-2 servings of dairy choices including yogurt, soft cheese, hard
cheese
0-3 cups of List 1 veggies
0-1 cups of List 2 veggies

Use minimal fat for cooking
Unlimited non-calorie beverages
A serving is per the product label
Use low calorie salad dressings and "light" butter substitutes (no
trans fats)
Take a complete multivitamin each day plus other desired supplements
Due to higher carbs in vegetarian products, appetite reduction may not
occur

MEAL REPLACEMENT SHAKE OPTION
Designed for convenience, automatic portion control and error proof

Up to 800 calories per day
Up to 16 total carbs per day
Up to 80 protein grams per day 0-4 RTD (Ready-to-Drink) meal
replacements shakes per day or
0-4 homemade protein shakes per day (15+ grams protein per shake)

RTD shakes should not exceed 200 calories and 4 carbs each
Protein powder should not exceed 200 calories and 4 carbs per serving
Protein powder may be mixed with any very low calorie beverage
Do not use milk for mixing protein powder
You may prefer to have 2 shake meals + 1 Kimkins food meal for variety
Take a complete multivitamin each day plus other desired supplements

*LEAN PROTEIN
Bake, boil, broil, grill, poach, roast, steam, nonstick spray

Eggs
Save fat calories by mixing 2 egg whites + 1 whole egg for scrambles
or omelettes
Choose low fat cooking methods and low fat mayonnaise to cut calories
Eggbeaters are excellent

Chicken & Turkey
Choose any fresh or frozen poultry that is not breaded
Remove the skin before cooking
White meat is lower in fat, but dark meat is fine
Rotisserie chicken may be allowed, beware of injected marinades
Duck and goose are fatty choices, enjoy as a rare treat and remove
skin

Fish & Seafood
Choose any type, non-breaded
Choose water-packed canned tuna or crab
Shellfish has carbs so figure them into your daily carb totals
Shrimp should be prepared without butter sauces
Use low carb sauces very sparingly

Pork & Lamb
Choose tenderloin, cutlets, extra lean ham or Canadian bacon
Trim all visible fat
Bacon and Sausage should be very occasional treats
Turkey bacon or chicken sausage are better low calorie choices

Beef
Beef should be eaten rarely for fastest weight loss results
Even the leanest cut is 30% fat by calories
Choose cuts labeled "round", "tenderloin", "flank" or "London broil"
Trim all visible fat

Game
Venison, bear, elk, bison, ostrich and buffalo are excellent lean
protein choices!
Cook by any low fat method listed above

VEGETABLES

**List 1

All lettuces
Alfalfa sprouts
Bok choy
Celery
Cucumber
Endive
Fennel
Fresh herbs
Mixed salad greens
Mushrooms
Radishes
Spinach (raw)

***List 2
Artichoke hearts
Asparagus
Bean sprouts
Broccoli
Brussels sprouts
Cabbage
Cauliflower
Chinese pea pods
Courgettes
Cooked greens
Eggplant
Garlic
Green beans
Leeks
Okra
Onion
Peppers
Snow pea pods
Summer squash
Tomato
Turnips
Zucchini

List 3
Maintenance Choices
Beets
Carrots
Corn
Fruit
Garbanzo beans
Hominy
Lima beans
Peas
Potatoes
Pumpkin
Rhubarb
Winter squash

MEAL REPLACEMENTS & SNACKS
No other substitutions!
Low carb protein shakes (1-4 carbs) as a meal replacement
Stallone brand protein pudding as a meal replacement
Dannon Carb & Sugar Control yogurt (3 carb brand, limit 1 per day)
Part skim string cheese (limit 1 per day)
Sugar free gelatin (limit 4 oz per day, no whipped topping)
Homemade or purchased sugar free popsicle

BEVERAGES
Unlimited!
Water (plain, flavored, mineral, anything 0 calorie)
Coffee & Teas (artificial sweeteners OK, no regular creamers)
0 Calorie Energy Drinks
Crystal Light
Diet soft drinks
PB - 27 Jul 2007 03:33 GMT
I have been reading some about this diet on several different websites
lately. It appears that some of the people at Lowcarbfriends have known
kimmer for a long time  and that is where she started out.
It appears that some of her advice (the posts are still there) have been
things like cutting calories to 500 per day with her boot camp plan, doing
water fasts some for a week at a time. However, she does not drink water so
she does her fasts with Diet Coke. She also advises people to take a
laxative every day and not to eat fiber as it bulks you up. As I said these
posts are still hanging around in her thread from before the kimkins website
got started so if you really want to research it you can without joining. I
had looked into because I read the article is Women's World a few weeks ago.
THere is a lot of controversy because her pictures seem to change all of the
time including one that is clearly a picture of a well known celebrity. She
has refused to meet anyone in person and Jimmy Moore did a phone interview
with her this week you can go to his podcast and hear some of the things she
has to say.
Some of them are pretty evasive and some are just downright wrong. She has
no medical degree and some of the things she talks about are incorrect.
I think a lot of people want to know if they are paying for someone to tell
them how to diet that they would like to know that she really lost her
weight. She does profess to be very experienced in crash dieting.
I was put off by the wacky diet advice that she had given out before she
started kimkins site.

> Any truth/validity to Kimkins? Is it all that great? It seems to be a
> highly restricted version of old-school Atkins/Stillman. There are some
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> qualifications other than "I lost weight". I would normally ignore this
> kind of thing, but the name keeps coming up.
jackiepatti@gmail.com - 27 Jul 2007 08:52 GMT
> It appears that some of her advice (the posts are still there) have been
> things like cutting calories to 500 per day with her boot camp plan, doing
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> posts are still hanging around in her thread from before the kimkins website
> got started so if you really want to research it you can without joining.

Yeah, I did.  I read a few hundred posts by her.

While I saw lots of people claiming she said these things, I never saw
her say them.

What she said was eat as much as you want until ketosis kicks in on
the K/E thing and then continue eating as much as you want on the
Kimkins thing cause you'd have appetite suppression happening.  The
people who did this reported they were taking in very low calories.
And lots of them also reported losing large amounts of weight pretty
fast.

I saw her recommend specific brands of fiber for having no non-fiber
carbs... and adding up the fiber in vegetable choices to show it was
better to eat salad and broccoli than take fiber.

And she does discuss fasting, but it's not part of the plan she
advocates per se.  She gives references to other people who teach
fasting.  And yeah, she says she fasts with diet soda and Crystal
Light.  I don't really consider this part of my review as it isn't
part of her plan, anymore than when she was answering someone about
how she used Retin-A.  Some posts were obviously off-topic to her plan
itself.

Now, I can't say for sure she never said those things... as there's
thousands more posts I haven't read.  And I'm not gonna.  I'm not
planning to make Kimmer a serious research subject, I just wasted a
few hours being curious.

> Some of them are pretty evasive and some are just downright wrong. She has
> no medical degree and some of the things she talks about are incorrect.

I just don't understand why she gets "accused" of not having a medical
degree.

I've been giving advice on this newsgroup for years without being an
MD.

Are only MDs allowed to discuss diet now?  Do we have to get an MD in
to write the newsgroup FAQ or to approve Saffire's weekly tips?

The only known MD we've ever had around here that I'm aware of is a
complete nutcase.  So I'm not terribly impressed with the degree as
conferring expertise in low-carb dieting.

> I think a lot of people want to know if they are paying for someone to tell
> them how to diet that they would like to know that she really lost her
> weight. She does profess to be very experienced in crash dieting.
> I was put off by the wacky diet advice that she had given out before she
> started kimkins site.

I didn't see anything *terribly* wacky in her plan directly.

Some of the fasting stuff she likes includes that one nutty doctor who
wants you to drink piles of epsom salts to pass gallstones or whatever
to cure everything under the sun.  No one seems to think that is "OK"
cause the crazy fasting lady has an MD!

Her refusal to ever meet anyone from the site, not even meeting anyone
from the magazine that's writing her up or people interviewing her -
that definitely seems pretty weird.  You'd think she'd be out there
promoting the thing.

But her diet plan doesn't seem "wacky" particularly.  Overall, her
advice seems to be, if you aren't losing weight, maybe you should eat
less.  If you want to lose weight faster, maybe you should eat less.
While I'm sure we could have arguments here about whether this is the
best possible diet advice or not, there's really nothing "wacky" about
it - it's a pretty mainstream view.
PB - 27 Jul 2007 12:27 GMT
> I just don't understand why she gets "accused" of not having a medical
> degree.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Are only MDs allowed to discuss diet now?  Do we have to get an MD in
> to write the newsgroup FAQ or to approve Saffire's weekly tips?

You did not set up a website and charge people 60 bucks a crack to get your
advice either did you?
Some of the information I got came from people that  are members of her
current community  and no they are not members of the lowcarbfriends board.
I did do a lot of research because I was very interested after reading about
it in the WW magazine. If her own members are saying these things that
definitely threw up a flag for me.

I feel that if you are going to put yourself out there as an expert and
charge money for it you should have some type of back up to show that you
actually know what the heck you are talking about. If you refuse to  be
interviewed live, even when the interviewer says he will come to your house
since you are so afraid to speak in public then there must be a reason for
it. Yes these are pretty much her own words in the interview she did with
Jimmy Moore.  If there was the ability to join for a time without having to
give your paypal info I would have done that. IMHO it seems like there is no
willingness to put out any proof that she is even able to sustain the weight
loss she reports. If I was making the money she has made since the write up
in the WW mag I would figure it was my responsibility to answer a few
questions like what my real name is and let people see that I really did
lose the weight.
Roger Zoul - 27 Jul 2007 13:25 GMT
:: <jackiepatti@gmail.com> wrote in message
:: news:1185522746.718725.274950@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
:: responsibility to answer a few questions like what my real name is
:: and let people see that I really did lose the weight.

Thing is, there are zillions of people with "back up" to show that the know
what they're talking about and yet we still get a bunch of conflicting BS
advice, when taken as a whole.  Also, what may work for once person may not
work for another.  Bottom line: diet doctors are a dime a dozen and worth
even less.  There any many roads that can lead to weight loss, too.  Keeping
it off is much trickier and anyone can fall off the wagon.

That's why I'm very dubious of any kind "low everything" plan or some
special version of "Atkins" or anything else.  Is there anything surprising
at all if you eat 500-1000 kcals a day on any kind of plan that most/many
people are going to lose weight?

Of course, some people do need coaching.  From what Jackie wrote, this
Kimmer person was providing a lot of support for that $60.  That may
actually be of value to someone on a starvation plan.  Even Atkins, IIRC,
provided support of similar nature to his weight loss patients.
jackiepatti@gmail.com - 27 Jul 2007 20:55 GMT
> Of course, some people do need coaching.  From what Jackie wrote, this
> Kimmer person was providing a lot of support for that $60.  That may
> actually be of value to someone on a starvation plan.  Even Atkins, IIRC,
> provided support of similar nature to his weight loss patients.

Actually, I don't know what she provided for the $60.  I saw what she
provided for several years for free on lowcarbfriends.com

I think I generally post supportive and informative posts, both here
and elsewhere.  But... I don't have a fraction of her patience. If I
had the same people asking me the same stupid questions all that time,
I'd have lost it with them.

Some of the criticism of her come from her inner circle... apparently
she pissed a lot of people off.  When she became a business, she did
the same lying sh.t many in the weight-loss industry do - posted fake
before and after shots and testimonials, wrote fake reviews on other
web sites to drum up business, spammed Freecycle lists across the
country, all while refusing to support the plan with public
appearances herself.  So her partners and supporters asked questions
and Ms. Guru didn't take being questioned well and banned lots of
folks and such, often without refunds.

But it's just not this one-sided story that people on either side make
it out to be.  She could not have been doing all that posting for all
those years just for the money as there wasn't any - and no way to
know there would be eventually.  She might have been doing it for ego
purposes, but then who *doesn't* post from that motivation to some
extent?  She seems to have genuinely cared and been supportive for a
rather long time which seems a difficult thing for someone working
purely out of selfish motives to have faked.

The people who are on either side of the whole thing seem equally
wacked to me.  Both the pro and anti Kimkins groups make ridiculous
arguments and seem extremists.

And the diet itself doesn't seem so terribly controversial to me.  Not
something I'd sign up for, but then most diets aren't.  Hell, I *like*
both Bernstein and the Eades and I don't do their diets either.
Roger Zoul - 28 Jul 2007 03:02 GMT
:: On Jul 27, 7:25 am, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
::: PB wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
:: *like* both Bernstein and the Eades and I don't do their diets
:: either.

I think staying below 1000 kcals/day - unless you're tiny - on a PSMF - for
more than a few weeks - should be controversial.
jackiepatti@gmail.com - 28 Jul 2007 03:51 GMT
> I think staying below 1000 kcals/day - unless you're tiny - on a PSMF - for
> more than a few weeks - should be controversial.

I saw one person was cycling through 2-week Kimkins and 2-week Atkins,
losing weight during Kimkins and maintaining on Atkins.  Kinda
reminiscent of the old Rotation Diet (does that exist anymore?).

A few others posted they were eating around 1200 calories/day on
Kimkins, which doesn't strike me as extreme.  I usually eat 1400
calories and I could probably cut 200 calories a day just by cutting
out my coffee with heavy cream - which wouldn't make much difference
to the nutrition in my diet.

There seems to me to be an overreaction to extreme diets to some
degree.  I seriously doubt fasting for a few days or going very low-
calorie for a few weeks is going to kill anyone, unless they have a
serious problem to begin with.

When I had pancreasitis, my entire dietary intake was IV saline
solution for 3 or 4 days, followed by nothing but broth and sugar-free
jello for a few days.  I didn't take in a hundred calories in the
whole week and I lived through this just fine.  Yes, I lost a few
pounds, but I don't recommend pancreasitis to anyone as a weight-loss
plan.  And sadly, I have no saline solution recipes to share.  ;)

Atkin's fat fast or the meat fast some regulars here used to do were
not intended as permanent life-long diets either.  It's something you
do for a few days to get into ketosis or break a stall.  It's not
sustainable, but it's not intended to be.

I've also seen a couple places suggest water fasting and/or very low
calorie diets as alternatives to gastric bypass surgery.  If I were in
a position where I was considering surgery, it seems to me it would be
a good choice to try fasting and/or a very low calorie diet first.
Heck, you're going to have to do that after the surgery anyways, might
as well try it without the pain and expense of surgery first.

Michael Eade blogged about his experience with Intermittent Fasting
here: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=278 and here:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=279.  What they did was eat
before 6 PM on one day and then after 6 PM on the next.  This let them
get in a 24-hour fast without ever having to go a day without food
cause they'd eat breakfast and lunch one day, and dinner the next.
There did seem to be a number of benefits to doing this, including
that they could significantly up their carbs without gaining weight.
Roger Zoul - 28 Jul 2007 15:39 GMT
:: On Jul 27, 9:02 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
::
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
:: Kinda reminiscent of the old Rotation Diet (does that exist
:: anymore?).

I don't see a problem with that....my issue would be doing it for several
months in an effort to drop a lot of weight quickly.  I do think there are
some good reasons to do that, but mostly it's a bad idea since it builds up
a yo-yo dieting nature in people.

:: A few others posted they were eating around 1200 calories/day on
:: Kimkins, which doesn't strike me as extreme.

It depends. Many women can handle 1200 kcals easily while getting proper
nutrition.

 I usually eat 1400
:: calories and I could probably cut 200 calories a day just by cutting
:: out my coffee with heavy cream - which wouldn't make much difference
:: to the nutrition in my diet.
::
:: There seems to me to be an overreaction to extreme diets to some
:: degree.

I don't think there is necessariy an overreaction to extreme diets, but
there may be a question as to what extreme is.  The definition of extreme
will depend on the person and his/her activity level.

 I seriously doubt fasting for a few days or going very low-
:: calorie for a few weeks is going to kill anyone, unless they have a
:: serious problem to begin with.

Agreed. Some of the PSMF i've seen use the cycling technique, rather than
months on end.

:: Michael Eade blogged about his experience with Intermittent Fasting
:: here: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=278 and here:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
:: including that they could significantly up their carbs without
:: gaining weight.

You know -- I will fast up to 48 hours from time to time.  It doesn't and
hasn't hurt me. But I don't do it for weight loss, either. For me, it's more
about mental control and knowing how my body reacts. One thing I learned,
which I think many people don't understand, is that during a fast hunger
will not increase without bound. At first it seems to, but after a while the
pangs dissipate.
Tom G. - 28 Jul 2007 03:25 GMT
> But it's just not this one-sided story that people on either side make
> it out to be.  She could not have been doing all that posting for all
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> rather long time which seems a difficult thing for someone working
> purely out of selfish motives to have faked.

  It's possible that a marketer can make an identity. A successful dieter
that has lost a lot of weight, relatively easily, in a short time, with a
seemingly guaranteed method, with simple to follow rules. Oh, and also super
nice and supportive of others that are struggling. Since this person would
be a nobody, some time would be needed to build a foundation. A picture of
an over-weight person and then some "after" shots would inspire a lot of
people. A period of maintenance of a year or so to prove it works, and you
have a winning plan. Motive? Money.
 Sure, some investment of time would be required, but probably not much
more than some posters spend already in their favorite forums. Since the
identity would be anonymous, it could disappear just as it was created. She
could be a smart Mom (or even a Dad) with a few kids, and needing extra
income. 'Probably has read every diet book out there, and feels like an
expert.
 Many posters that are honest, don't use their real names in cyberworld. I
think there are a few of posters on this forum that have changed identities
to get rid of their past reputations. Some have been found out by the
failure to eliminate certain words, capitalizations, or phrases easily
linked to the past poster.

> The people who are on either side of the whole thing seem equally
> wacked to me.  Both the pro and anti Kimkins groups make ridiculous
> arguments and seem extremists.

   Given the controversy over the lack of proof in identity, and how easily
that could be rectified by Kimmer, I'm not surprised. People get emotional
when they think something is real, but it ends up not.

> And the diet itself doesn't seem so terribly controversial to me.  Not
> something I'd sign up for, but then most diets aren't.  Hell, I *like*
> both Bernstein and the Eades and I don't do their diets either.

 Right. I would say the diet would work if followed. Some do not think it
is a good plan because it goes against some beliefs of a proper dieting
plan, and there is no maintenance stage. But I think the most controversy
comes from the identity issue.
jackiepatti@gmail.com - 28 Jul 2007 04:02 GMT
>    It's possible that a marketer can make an identity. A successful dieter
> that has lost a lot of weight, relatively easily, in a short time, with a
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> people. A period of maintenance of a year or so to prove it works, and you
> have a winning plan. Motive? Money.

I just don't see it.

Spend hours a day posting for years as a marketing plan?  I mean,
you're talking hundreds and hundreds of hours without pay for some
nebulous payoff that may or may not happen?

I sure believe people can do that for *free* because they want to.
It's easy to get obsessive about being online sometimes.  I've been
there in various forums myself over the years.

>   Sure, some investment of time would be required, but probably not much
> more than some posters spend already in their favorite forums.

Yeah, but I do *that* for fun.  That's the difference.  It's
recreation.

That's my point, I don't see giving up hundreds of hours of recreation
time for nothing.

It's not impossible, but... I don't think it's very likely.  It's just
not a good business plan.

>   Right. I would say the diet would work if followed. Some do not think it
> is a good plan because it goes against some beliefs of a proper dieting
> plan, and there is no maintenance stage. But I think the most controversy
> comes from the identity issue.

I agree.  Kimmer is a polarizing character and I suspect much more of
the controversy is about her rather than the plan itself.
BlueBrooke - 28 Jul 2007 04:40 GMT
>>    It's possible that a marketer can make an identity. A successful dieter
>> that has lost a lot of weight, relatively easily, in a short time, with a
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>It's easy to get obsessive about being online sometimes.  I've been
>there in various forums myself over the years.

I've been thinking (more speculation, yes) that she (? -- we don't
even know that for sure) created an online persona that got away from
her.  We've already seen that, most recently in alt.support.diabetes
-- that guy had a dozen!!  

Might be that when she started with the website, she thought she could
keep the "real her" under wraps -- it is the internet, after all, and
then things took off, and now she's stuck.  

I have no doubt that it's only a matter of (a short) time before we
find out who the "real 'Kimmer' " is -- the thing is snowballing and
someone somewhere will get a peek at the animal before too long. There
are too many inquiring minds out there, and Corona isn't in the middle
of nowhere.  

Signature

BlueBrooke
254/233/135

Doug Freyburger - 28 Jul 2007 16:18 GMT
jackiepa...@gmail.com wrote:

> >    It's possible that a marketer can make an identity. A successful dieter
> > that has lost a lot of weight, relatively easily, in a short time, with a
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> > people. A period of maintenance of a year or so to prove it works, and you
> > have a winning plan. Motive? Money.

Possible, but that's a lot of prep.

> I just don't see it.

Because nearly any home business will end up profitable in that
amount of time.  If the original goal was a busines, becoming an
Ebay power seller or buying an MLM kit or whatever is more of
a sure thing.

> Spend hours a day posting for years as a marketing plan?  I mean,
> you're talking hundreds and hundreds of hours without pay for some
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Yeah, but I do *that* for fun.  That's the difference.  It's
> recreation.

Same here.  I posted on www.ncenter.com while it was around,
then www.escribe.com while it was around.  Plenty of folks have
invited me to join lowcarbfriends and several others but these days
I post on ASLDC, ASD and one small Atkins support board.

And low carb isn't the only topic I post on.

> It's not impossible, but... I don't think it's very likely.  It's just
> not a good business plan.

Money could be made at it, but per effort so little.

Thing is, there are books that teach you should do what you love.
I love low carb so maybe I should do that.  I love my current
carrier *more* so I have no intention of switching.  But Kimmer
clearly loves low carbing.  Maybe she followed that advice and
is now trying to turn a hobby that costs the monthly internet
access charge into a business that pays the bills?  More power
to her if that's the case.  No matter that I disagree with her on
an assortment of points or that she's controvertial.  "Do what
you love.  The money will follow" is advice I've read that I
support.

Post on assorted topics.  Find one that ends up a hobby you
love so much you're still at it years later and you've thought
out the parts of the hobby so you have your own system for
it.  Have enough enthusiasm for the hobby that you have a
network of friends or fans.  Decide that you may as well
follow the advice above, so start charging for your support.
Controvertial?  Yup.  But it's so classic a way to find what
job you were made for it's called a "calling".
Aaron Baugher - 30 Jul 2007 23:14 GMT
> Post on assorted topics.  Find one that ends up a hobby you
> love so much you're still at it years later and you've thought
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Controvertial?  Yup.  But it's so classic a way to find what
> job you were made for it's called a "calling".

Yep.  It's not at all unusual to read about someone who's running a
thriving small business and see something like, "I just loved making
cakes, and I'd been making them for my friends for years, so once the
kids moved out and I had more time on my hands, I thought why not turn
it into a business?"

I've posted at least 531 messages in this newsgroup since June of 2002
(that's as far back as I have them saved) without any intention of
making a dollar from it.  If I decide one of these days to write my
own book called "The Pig Out on Fat Diet" and it sells a bunch of
copies, and then a food processing company approaches me to put my
name on their new line of butter-soaked bacon treats, that won't mean
all my posts for the past five years were part of a plan to reach that
point, but some might think that.

Of course, the big issue with Kimmer seems to be her secrecy; a few
on-camera interviews would shut down a lot of the arguments and
speculation.

Signature

Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.