Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / July 2007
Kimkins?
|
|
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
|
|
|