Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Okay some Kimkins stuff...

I actually have another rant coming on my thoughts on the kimkins diet which I will post soon but in the meantime you can get a fair idea here: Kimkins. I was just reading Jimmy's 30 in 30 blog and just had to post a quickie.

I want to state this is nothing personal, this is purely based on some comments I read. I just hate the thought of misinformation particularly when it will cost someone their hard earned money and health. I am posting this here simply because this is my blog and I can say what I want to.... (sounds like a song I know!)

Okay firstly, I want to say if you see someone promoting Kimkins on their blog or their website, remember they get paid to do this, I read somewhere the other day that people are getting 20 or 25% just from referrals or something similar. Hence, there will always be an obvious bias...

Now we all know Jimmy has been promoting Kimkins for some time, to be honest I have never been a big fan of this simply because I think a lot of people idolise him and trust him and it contradicts the message I thought he was trying to get across on such topics as fats and yo-yo, crash dieting but that is not what this post is about, I am just being upfront. I will get into those things that concern me about Kimkins in another post.

What I want to get into in this current post is some comments I have read by him.

The main difference between Atkins and Kimkins is fat. On Kimkins, you reduce the fat slightly as a means for reducing caloric intake.

But I'm not eating that much less fat now than I was during my weight loss days on Atkins. The only difference is I'm counting fiber and sugar alcohols in my carb counts on Kimkins.

Is he serious, reduce the fat slightly???

He is doing kimmers experiment now which is basically just lean meat and egg, that's seriously all he ate when he lost all his weight before, no lashings of butter, fatty meat, chicken skin and the like, no salad or veggies?

Kimmers experiment is not like Atkins induction!

Next is this comment to someone mentioning the calorie limit of 600 calories:

I'm afraid you have fallen for the rumors and innuendo that have been spread about Kimkins on forums and web sites that would just assume the plan go away. I've looked at all of the Kimkins plans and NONE of them call for only 600 calories in a day.


The calorie restrictions that are placed on a couple of the plans are designed to speed up weight loss and then higher numbers are allowed once you reach your weight loss goal.

All of them are above the 1200-calorie level, again unlike what you may have "heard" about Kimkins.

Is this for real? Has Kimmer changed her plans somewhat in the last few days or is there something awfully misleading about this comment? Am I and many others that have talked about this on various forums and the like, now liars and just plain stupid and blind because we comment on things we have read straight out of the horses mouth (Kimmer as well as her followers) so to speak.

Okay lets look at her plans which are very well known, they are posted everywhere particularly on the low carb friends forum. I have asked people who do Kimkins if this is true and they say it is. I have no idea what the vegetarian one is other then the calorie limit but I know about the other four.

First you have Kimmers experiment where you eat lean meat and egg and minimal condiment and spices used sparingly. You are not allowed any fat or fatty meats, dairy etc, just the lean meat and eggs. Yes it isn't limited but how much can you eat and for how long?

Next is her plan where she adds minimal fat to make your menu work and minimal veggies.

Okay so far not too bad you think as there are no calorie limits, but how much meat do you think you can eat? The veggies will bring bugger all calories as you are counting fibre, so will the fat considering there's bugger all so all it leaves is meat. To reach 1200 calories you would have to eat just over 600g of lean grilled rump steak or just over 700g of grilled skinless chicken breast. Okay some of you might be able to put that away but how many of you will especially if you are deep in ketosis from such little carbs...?

But hey lets pretend they are 1200 calories as we still have 3 more to go...

The next one is boot camp which anyone who has read up on kimkins via the low carb forums are familiar with. This one is the worst, it is 500ish calories and a required minimal 30 minutes of daily cardio *eek*

With these 500 calories, protein is limited to something like 70-90g a day.

Some specifics of the boot camp from the LCF forum and I will add the calories and protein that I worked out in bold:

Boot Camp 'Mess Hall"
Bare Bones Menu

Up to 2 eggs (cooked without fat) * 2 large poached eggs = 161 cal, 13.8g protein
Up to 1/2 cup List 2 veggies
Up to 2 oz lean ham or other lean protein (raw/cured weight) * lean leg ham = 61 cal, 10.8g protein
Unlimited non-calorie beverage

Up to 4 oz lean protein (raw weight) * raw chicken breast no skin or bones = 125 cal, 25.6g protein
Up to 2 cups mixed greens + Wishbone Spritzer dressing (or caloric equivalent)
Unlimited non-calorie beverage

Up to 4 oz lean protein (raw weight) * raw lean rump steak = 133 cal, 26.7 protein
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

2 cups of salad is 1 large handful.
If Wishbone Spritzer is not available, a small amount of other 'light' dressing may be used sparingly.
Diet drinks with zero or nearly zero carbs and calories are permitted.
Low-carb protein shakes (1-4 total carbs each) may be used as lean protein/meal replacements.
Stallone-type low-carb protein 'puddings' (1-4 total carbs) may be used as lean protein/meal replacements.
Sugar-free gelatin is allowed in moderation, no more than 1 cup per day.
Those who wish may skip the salads and vegetables. Do not add anything extra to make up for it.
Now lets add those up, the meat and egg equal 480 calories and 76.9g of protein *eek*

Then you have her protein shake one which is limited at 800 calories with up to 80 grams protein per day.

Or her vegetarian one which is up to 1000 calories a day.

How do they pan out to not being under 1200 calories? Can someone tell me what I am missing here?

Now as I said this isn't a personal attack, I just think people should know the facts.

Other Kimkins articles by me:

Nov 16: Kimkins Diet Scam
Sept 22: The Low Fat side of the Kimkins Diet: Rabbit Starvation, Sudden Death and Resting Metabolism.
Sept 11: The Low Fat side of the Kimkins Diet: Gallstones.
Aug 17: My reply to Deni
Aug 13: The low fat side of the Kimkins Diet, Part 1
July 18: Is Kimkins okay simply because it is low carb?
July 15: Kimkins and Kimmer
June 13: Okay Some Kimkins Stuff...


TESS said...

Thank you! This was what I figured but didn't have acess to most of the programs. I do remember a post at Jimmys blog a few mon ago where I made mention I had dropped my calories to 800 and his respnse was I wasn't eating healthy. I agree many take his word as gospel and promoting a low calorie diet so heavily isn't responsible. I did a lot of research before I dropped my calories and didn't use it for long just as a month experiment. Many are forking over $60 for Kimmer and they won't be able to stay with it. It takes a very strong person to go for months on end(or a desparte one) on so little food and if they culd do it they wouldn't fork over the money for the Pleasure(?) of having Kimmer herself cheer them on. OK that is my rant!!!

Sherrie said...

Hey Tess :)

The bit that bothers me the most is how "glamourfied" it is. Its all cracked up to be this great diet that brings such amazing results and no consequences.

Yes a lot of people seem to lose weight fast but at what cost? What if you took say longer then 3 months to lose your weight on such low calories and low fat, what does that do to ones body? And what about those people who do not have say over 30% body fat, how would their body cope? And then there's men, how do men fair on only 500 calories?

And hey whose to say you will see the drawbacks to such a diet straight away, maybe you won't notice it until later down the track when the weight is back on and it is even harder to lose weight. We've all heard that story before right? Whose to say this is any different?

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there is plenty of reason for there to be valid concerns, yet they are consantly brushed off, glossed over, ignored etc

Crazy stuff imo if someone really needs to do something so low calorie and deficient in nutrients then they need to go in with both eyes open. But then does anyone really need to eat only 500 calories a day and 30mins cardio to lose weight?

But, it gets worse then that as I believe water fasting is also encouraged.

Really insane and potentially dangerous stuff imo, not something that people should just walk into blindly and certainly not something to be touted off as the next best thing since sliced bread (so to speak).

Haha now you have me ranting again LOL

laurab said...

Hi! I understand your concern and I held the same until I started attempting this way of eating.

I'm not eating 500 calories a day, but I'm not really breaking 1000, and that's not entirely by choice. I'm honestly NOT HUNGRY.

Now, I'm having to control that unconscious urge to eat just to eat, but that's getting easier every day. It's forcing me to pay attention to those cues. Am I hungry or is it something else?

Is it anymore dangerous than the extreme that is gastric bypass surgery? I believe their post surgery diets are low sugar high protein and in tiny amounts, too.

And what of the trials done on several different species that show calorie restriction improves fasting glucose levels, cholesterol, blood pressure and extending maximum lifespan?

If I have additional fat on my body, it can be used as fuel. That's why we store it. It's not actually a punishment for overindulging. People have been in dire situations with no access to food and have lived. People fast for religious reasons and live through that.

If Dr Atkins approved staying on induction for the entire duration of the ongoing weight loss, then is Kimmer's plan different, really?

From what I can gather, if you're genuinely hungry, you're supposed to eat. It's about restriction, not deprivation.

Maintenance is always the issue, no matter what plan of eating you're using.

Jimmy's still got a daytime job, so I don't think he's making a boatload of cash by "pushing" this diet. I looked to me like he just wanted a fresh perspective to get a handle on his eating again, which of course is the trick with maintenance.

But I TOTALLY understand your suspicion. I thought the same thing too when he first started writing about it. But it turns out it seems to be helping me. I don't own a scale, so I don't have a number to give you, but today I'm wearing a shirt I haven't worn in a couple years :-)

Sherrie said...

Hey Laura :)

Yeah Atkins said you could stay on induction longer if you had a lot to lose but I really don't equate that to any of the kimkins plans. I have the 72 book as well and that is still not like any of kimkins plans. One of the things I recall reading in his books is that he always said Atkins should never be done low fat.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying calories don't count, of course they do but so does a lot of other stuff. I counted calories myself when I was losing my final few kgs on Atkins. I stuck to 1500 calories per day and I reached my goal (55kgs) and gained muscle mass (beginner gains I imagine) as I was doing resistance training.

But even that wasn't enough nutrition for me and I ended up sick so yeah I don't take it lightly.

The thing is, say your eating 500, 800 or even 1000 calories, how do you know you are getting enough nutrition as in vitamins, minerals etc? I can't see how you would and fat stores do not store it for you.

Another thing I have always wondered and I am just pondering here. Say, you are losing vast amounts of body fat on kimkins, lets say you are really losing half a pound a day (I'm not convinced on that). Fat cells also store various hormones and toxins along with the fat, when they release that fat they are releasing all this rubbish as well, how does your body cope with such high amounts of it being released each day?

Gastric bypass, I don't know a great deal about it myself but I believe there are alot of issues with nutrient deficiencies. BG whose blog is in my blog roll (back across the line) has had this done and she advocates a high fat diet. BG if you see this, feel free to chime in!

Sure people have been in dire situations and lived, people do it for religious reasons etc but is that what you want, to just live?

I lived a lot of my life restricting calories, not intentionally as I didn't have a weight problem, I just didn't eat often. I was skinny yes but I had plenty of fat but very little muscle and I was sick and cold all the time. Hey maybe some people do fine that way but I sure as heck didn't and hey I ended up fat the moment I ate more food.

I see your point on not having to be deprived but you see thats the magic of ketosis isn't it. It can REALLY blunt your hunger and thats where another problem lies, can it mask true hunger?

You know when we had a drought once my mum tried to save a dying wombat, the poor thing was starved for both food and water. We tried to get it to eat and drink but it was too late, despite that it really needed it to survive it wasn't interested. Had it put on a drip, cost a fortune but it died a couple of days later.

Anyway I know thats not the same but just a point.

Then you have the recent death of the baby who was raised by a vegetarian couple on just soy milk and apple juice, why? because it was malnourished as it wasn't getting enough nutrients. I'm sure he wasn't deprived of something to drink but it wasn't the right nutrients.

If you did this for a short time then chances are so long as you listen to your body you will be okay but how many do?

Thanks for the discussion :)

Lowcarb_dave said...


I've also looked at how protein by itself has a satiety limit.

It makes you gag after a while and too much protein causes intestinal issues.

So your body definately has an upper limit on lean protein intake.

I'm a member of Kimkins forums (yep a paid one) and yes some members go really low on calories. The plan doesn't require a certain low amount (which is good), but lowering your cals as far as you can is encouraged.

My problem is I can't get past the first day. Perhaps I'm just sick of starvation diets, which is what this is.


Sherrie said...

Hey Dave!

The first 2 I blogged about, yeah, no limits but how much can you eat, I think this is one of the reasons Atkins warned not to do a low fat version of his diet.

But the following 3, go to the forum and look at the limits for bootcamp, protein shake one and the vegetarian one, I bet those limits I blogged about are there :)

This next bit isn't directed to you Dave, I just want to make a point :)

In fact anyone whom are genuinely doing kimkins and are not trying to make money from it, please go look if you seriously don't know and tell me those limits are not there.

I know my information is correct, whether you do it and what I think is moot for thus, my point is that there are 3 plans with limits, one around 500, one 800 and one 1000. No pussy footing around trying to glamourise it, those limits are fact. The fact that even on the two other plans very low calories is also encouraged, even water fasting for days, weeks even is also fact. In fact the same mind set, encouragement etc and opinions by kimmer on VLCD and water fasting is there in the old kimkins threads on the low carb friends forum so if anyone wants a feel for what is encouraged go there and have a read.

I have no doubt there are lots and lots of support amongst each other and that is great (I think lots of support is essential) but there is also no negativity and from what I have heard it is very discouraged. It is great and all to be positive, that I agree but awareness is also a great thing.

If people research it and decide thats what they want to do for themselves I have no problem but lets all be honest here and not beat around the bush.

There IS a negative side to VLCD and kimkins does have atleast 3 VLCD and it IS heavily encouraged. If you want to do it, read up on it and not just on the kimkins forum which is naturally biased and decide for yourself and go into it with both eyes open.

Heres a few search terms for google, try Very Low Calorie Diets or VLCD, Protein Sparing Modified Fast or PSMF and Liquid Protein Diets. Then go read up on nutrients, get an idea of whats in what, possible deficiencies, absorbtion etc so you atleast have some idea.

Sparky's Girl said...

I'd just like to say that I never added a Kimkins ad on my blog or website until I'd tried it out first. I didn't want to mislead anyone and I felt I would be betraying my readers trust if I just blindly added a link without having any knowledge of the plan.

I've been a member of Kimkins since Octobter of last year and looked it over. I was very skeptcial at first. It sounded like a starvaton diet to me as well. I decided the only way I'd know was to give it a real try. I did boot camp for a couple of weeks and lost 7 lbs. I was impressed, but still not sure of it.

A couple of weeks ago I decided I wanted to try again. I can honestly say that I lost 1/2 lb a day when I stuck with the plan. Being an old Atkins girl, I found it difficult some days to avoid my favorites that were a bit higher in fats, like cheese and cream. I occasionally indulged and my weight loss slowed down a bit.

I've tried to make it clear on my blog that this isn't a diet for everyone, just like Atkins isn't for everyone.

Right now it's working fine for me. I'm taking my suppliements, which is a requirement on Kimkins, to help fill in any gaps I might have. But I do have more fat than the average low-fat plan, and I'm never hungry, unless it's true hunger, which happens about 3 to 4 times a day.

If at anytime I feel it's not healthy or I don't feel well, I'll be changing things. I will admit that I won't be staying on Kimkins for maintainence. It's not the way I want to eat for the rest of my life. But for now, it's working for me.

Just my 2 cents.

Sherrie said...

Hey SG :)

500 calories is 500 calories whether protein or carbohydrates.

But thats not my gripe in this post, what is, is the way it is being portrayed.

All of us fellow low carbers, have a go at all sorts of people, organisations etc regarding non low carb dietary advice, cholesterol, statins, nutrition, health etc

We all expect some type of standards/principles, honesty, expect people that have influence to use that responsibly and we all encourage and preach awareness rather then ignorance yet it seems if something is low carb then bang these things don't apply.

What I'm saying is lets be honest here, the 5 plans are not all over 1200 calories and all plans are very low fat.

Sure maybe there are some people out there that really do have to choose the lesser of two evils here and as long as they are medically supervised then I am sure they are doing the right thing but what about all those countless thousand others that could be doing this ignorantly and totally wrecking there metabolisms.

You know I recall Kimkins has said herself that she has been doing stillmans since she was 16 years old and waterfasting since 20yrs old and shes what 47-49 now? thats a long time to be doing this...

Do people really want to go down that road, should we really encourage that without atleast saying, hey this is a crash diet and there are lots of potential risks here.

Anyway thats not directed at you, I am just clarifying where I am coming from.

Cindy said...

Looking forward to your next post!!

I am always suspicious of things that you can't examine before you buy. It doesn't matter if it's a piece of meat, a shirt, or a diet. And 24hrs free access doesn't make any sense. If you want to, in that 24hr you can probably print out everything you need if you wanted to "steal" her plan....but it's not enough time to fully evaluate a plan!!

While I don't really care what anyone else does, I just don't get it. Yes, you must get rapid weight loss, but like you say, at what price? And, studies have shown that rapid weight loss almost always leads to rapid regain of weight.

I think the biggest problem I have with Kimkins, is that if it is as low fat and calorie as most people indicate, is that is just doesn't sound like a healthy way of life. Fat especially, since so many vitamins, etc rely on adequate fat to be absorbed and used by the body. Also, I've not heard anything about a maintenance plan or phase.

I also agree with you about Jimmy promoting this. He has put himself out there, with his book and blog and podcast, as an "expert", and has a responsibility to all that read his blog, etc. Him going on the plan? Fine...but in my opinion he should clearly state his reasons, and concerns and make sure people have full knowlege. I think he should have kept quiet, at least until he fully evaluated the plan and say how HE reacted to it, as well as any information he was able to get from the experience of others on the plan.

Sherrie said...

But you see thats the thing, can he fully and honestly evaluate it?

I say that because he must send an awful lot of refferals their way so he would be making some decent money from it. The fact that he is so enthusiastic with his blogging about kimkins and the success stories says to me too that he gets quite a few refferals.

Which then leads me to, if you are making money from this, how can you accurately critique it? I don't think anyone could under the circumstances. His opinion is going to be biased and it always will be, how can it not?
Put it this way, he can't afford to say it sucks, if he did there would go part of his income.

But mostly, I think with these kind of diets alot of the results are never immediate are they?

I think the fact that kimkins herself said in various posts that she has been yoyoing back and forth on virtually the same methods she encourages (stillmans and water fasting) for what 30 years? is a big enough evaluation for me.

BamaGal said...

I am with you on this Sherri---

but having had gastric bypass surgery myself---I can tell you trying to live on less than 1000 cal a day is per dee he$$ on the body----you lose your hair, you have no energy, it will even lead to neurological disorders if not monitored

now I follow a ketogenic diet which is close to 80% fat--my carb intake is practically none---what a few I do eat are leafy green veggies for the folic acid and on rare occasions some berries or melon

the kimkins diet is not to be done for anything but quick weight loss---there is no maintenance---even Jimmy said he would return to his regular atkins maintenance when he reaches his goal

to those who want to do this---more power to you---but most people end up regaining weight on this kind of plan---even those having gastric bypass surgery will regain

you have to do the work on your head---what makes you eat in the first is addiction plain and simple and know what causes food addiction---carbs

Jimmy Moore said...

THANKS for sharing your concerns about my promotion of Kimkins at my blog, Sherrie. I can understand why you would come to some of the conclusions that you have, but allow me to clarify.

I began blogging about Kimkins well over a year ago because people were able to find a low-carb plan that was working for them when other versions weren't. That doesn't mean I don't like Atkins, Protein Power, or other such low-carb programs anymore. It's merely another tool for people to use.

After all, I constantly talk about people finding what works for them, follow that plan exactly, and then keep at it for the rest of their life. It's all low-carb, so my support for Kimkins does not waver from my support for Atkins, too.

When I started on Kimkins a few weeks ago, it was for my own personal reasons. I needed to get my focus back in my low-carb lifestyle. As much as people think this is easy now that I've lost a bunch of weight, the fact is it is something I constantly have to work on.

I'm light years ahead of where I was, but a tweak here and there to help me keep the weight off is something each individual must do to keep their weight maintained.

While I appreciate all of the questions you have about my support for Kimkins, I can tell you this--it's helping me and thousands more lose weight and get healthy the low-carb way.

Isn't that something worth celebrating?

Sherrie said...

Jimmy I have been maintaining my weight loss since 2002 so I think I can empathise with that, I have also had a pregnancy in that time which caused me to gain over 25kg and no it wasn't due to food, I ate the same.

I also know how motivating it is to wake up in the morning and see 3kg (6-7pds)of fluid retention gone in just one night so I understand BUT that doesn't neccasarily mean the end justifies the means.

In regards to your kimkins journey, if you want to do K/E more power to you, my issue is not with how you do individually. You had what at most 50 pounds to lose? 50pds for a most males isn't much in that I am sure you can do it quickly particulary because that means you have to cut out a lot of problem foods so I am sure you can get through it okay. I also sincerly hope you reach your goal and am able to keep the creep away this time and that you take up resistance training as I think its the weights that will help you most of all and be the KEY in maintaining.

That is not my issue.

My issue is that just because something blunts ones appetite (not all), just because it cuts out carbs, just because for a lot of people it is motivating does not make it safe or healthy which I clearly think has yet to be shown.

I also find a lot of the advice given is quite scary, eg people being assured that 200 calories is fine simply because they are not hungry and people being encouraged to water fast for as long as they can being told it is safe to even fast for 365 days. This is what she represents and I find it outright dangerous regardless of how nice a person she may be. I also had a problem with people given the impression that all plans were over 1200 calories whether you meant to or not, eg boot camp is clearly 500ish calories. There are MANY, MANY people who will do bootcamp blindly not realising how little they are actually eating and the risks involved, I do not believe hunger is a true marker of whether something is healthy or not in that extreme.

I know you are just like all of us, you just want to lose that weight and finally reach your goal, you just want to do that for yourself and I understand that as I have been there too.

I also know you hold a lot of value and have done the low carb community good and because of this you have a lot of people that totally trust you 100%

When it comes to kimkins THAT scares me. When you announced that you were doing this diet etc THAT scared me simply because a lot of people will follow and go into it with both eyes shut because THEY trust you.

I really do think you need to keep in mind your influence on a lot of people, maybe you don't want that responsibility I don't know but you have it now.

Jimmy Moore said...

I hear where you are coming from, Sherrie, and I greatly respect what you are saying. It's true I have put myself out there and people listen.

But I wouldn't compromise my core beliefs for anything and I am thoroughly convinced that Kimkins is helping a lot of people lose weight the low-carb way when other plans, including low-carb ones, have not worked as well for them.

It goes back to finding what works for you. Kimkins is no more dangerous or unhealthy than Atkins and it certainly is a whole heck of a lot better than Ornish's diet.

Lost in this debate about Kimkins is the fact that people are finally getting excited about weight loss and getting healthy when they were on a one-way trip to remaining obese forever with the health problems that follow.

If I could just give every overweight and obese person in the world a taste of what that feels like to have the hope they are looking for regarding their weight, then my mission on this Earth will have been accomplished.

And I won't have any regrets about it either. THANKS again for allowing me to express my opinions on your blog.

Sherrie said...

Hello Jimmy :)

It goes back to finding what works for you. Kimkins is no more dangerous or unhealthy than Atkins and it certainly is a whole heck of a lot better than Ornish's diet.

I strongly disagree, and I will post more about that later.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

An example for those severly restricting their fat, go search rabbit diet and Stefansson.

Jimmy Moore said...

Well, all I can say is I'm not eating that much less fat now than I was when I was losing weight on Atkins in 2004. I look forward to your column.

Sherrie said...

Hey Jimmy I am glad that you haven't reduced your fat too much.

Its not what your eating that concerns me really as I have no idea what you eat unless you do bootcamp (which I hope you don't go anywhere near).

It's more on the lines of, the word escapes me now lol but say the promotion of the "fast weight loss" or "quick fix" and that extremely low calories are okay and healthy simply because they are "low carb".

I realise her first 2 plans arn't restricted in calories but as you would have seen its very easy to eat very low calories on those plans without realising when your carbs are so low, particulary when watching your fat intake like whats encouraged.

And of course this problem is exasberated so much more on kimkins due to the behaviour being encouraged so much and people repeatedly being told its perfectly safe.

I mean, hey even the Atkins diet has problems where some people rebound badly when going off the diet too but I wonder... maybe they ate too little too?

Jimmy Moore said...

THANKS, Sherrie!

Let me be clear--I do not advocate "extremely low calories" as a mandatory requirement in someone's diet. If they feel compelled to eat, then they should ABSOLUTELY eat. I say that all the time.

However, at the same time, it is indeed possible and happened when I was losing my weight on Atkins in 2004 that you are so satisfied on the food you have eaten (ostensibly the protein and fat in your diet) that you don't feel like you need to eat.

Many low-carbers who eat this way report how they sometimes eat one meal, maybe two and then don't eat the rest of the day. Even the highly-respected low-carb expert Dr. Mike Eades has said as much at his blog.

How many calories did these people consume? 600, maybe 700? Where's the outcry about calories with these examples?

To me it's hypocritical of those who complain about Kimkins not providing enough calories when the complaint I received most often when I was on Atkins was that I was eating too many calories. I really wish people would make up their minds because neither plan I did had a restriction on calories.

The Kimkins plan I am doing has two specifics that I disagree with: the low-fat requirement and the inability to subtract fiber from total carbs.

I eat more fat with my meals than Kimmer would like, but I'm still losing weight. I also have continued eating my fiber sources because I believe it is essential to my healthy low-carb lifestyle.

I've been on the Forum at Kimkins and have seen some people talking about THEIR experience eating such-and-such number of calories, but I haven't seen anyone dictate--"You better only eat 500 calories today or else you won't lose wieght!" It just doesn't happen, Sherrie!

As with any plan you begin as a diet, you must have a long-term strategy in place. For me, I'm using Kimkins to get my weight down below 200 pounds...something I have not been able to do for the past three years (and it has nothing to do with the "products" excuse I have heard bantered about).

When I reach that goal, I will begin adding back my green leafy veggies (LOVE my spinach!), nuts, seeds, cheese, and full-fat meats slowly and gradually so that I can keep an eye on my weight a little more closely.

Nobody said managing your weight would be easy. But I'll be danged if I just wallow in my own self-pity about why I failed. My approach is to tackle the problem head-on in my way that's right for me.

I'm not expecting anyone to follow my lead, but they can do that on their own free will if they so choose. But it's their choice, not mine. With so many people getting helped by Kimkins right now, why not?

THANKS again for the interesting conversation, Sherrie! I appreciate the civility of your arguments and believe you are helping move the debate in a positive direction. Take care! :)

Sherrie said...

Jimmy you don't need to be a member of the forum to see the advice people get or to see how the majority eat. There are plenty examples freely available on LCF.

As for people eating too little on Atkins, I always see people warned that they need to eat more on various forums, very low calories is always discouraged. The interesting thing is, that these people that are showing their menus and how little they have been eating all that time, have hit a brick wall.

Jimmy Moore said...

While the Kimkins plans are indeed available at LCF and in other places online, the actual diet itself is not the purpose of joining Kimkins.

I personally think the Kimkins Forums are the most supportive group of people I've ever encountered in the low-carb community. Regardless of what you think about the plan itself, that forum is amazing because the people care about helping one another succeed. I don't think anyone expects that.

You'll get no argument out of me that people who are hungry or stall out on the Atkins or any other low-carb diet should indeed eat MORE--protein and fat. I've been consistent on this point ever since I started blogging.

More than anything, if we can get people started livin' la vida low-carb and understanding why it is the all-important first step, then perhaps at a later date educating them on why fat is healthy for them in conjunction with that low-carb diet will sink in. Baby steps, Sherrie.

Weight loss first with Kimkins--then weight maintenance later with Atkins. I see nothing wrong with this approach as long as the participants aren't purposefully starving themselves which is NOT recommended.

Sherrie said...

Hehe I would hardly call kimkins a baby step to Atkins!

As for supportive community, I don't question it but I hear Breatharianism also have just as good a supportive community as well ;)

Nessa715 said...


I've been looking for a voice of reason in a sea of confusion on this topic and yours is it. I thank you tremendously for this post!

I am a member of the Kimkins site and have decided not to do any Kimkins plan any longer. I looked up to Jimmy Moore's advice over the years, and after he advocated the diet, I did it.

I did Kimkins Boot Camp for two weeks and lost 14 pounds! Yay, everyone said! Congratulations! However, I was weak, tired and groggy the entire time. The supportive members of the forum told me to hang in there, the SNATT would pass and my energy would pick up and even, "it will be worth it when you lose the weight."

I asked myself a question, "If you died next week, would this be worth it?" My answer was - Nope, not by a long shot!

And when my husband watched me nibble at half of a grilled chicken breast with very little appetite, he very politely asked me to go off my "starvation diet".

I have to admit I was caught up in the hype, the hysteria, the "hope" as Jimmy calls it, but I'm not anymore. Above and beyond all of that, I want to be healthy...and no matter which way you slice it, the Kimkins plan (none of the options) is not a healthy weight loss or maintenance plan.

People say the proof is in the pudding - and "thousands of people are losing weight on Kimkin", but weight loss is not the pudding. The pudding is a healthy body and a healthy relationship with food that lasts for a lifetime. That's my goal and that's what I am reaching for.

DietKing2 said...

Hi Sherrie!
I like your style and I like the way you say it!
Eh, personally, I think we've all done 'Kimkins' at one time or another--and boy, I personally think it hurts too much and also requests the user to think too much i.e. counting carbs and fat...whew...
Look, I'm all for folks trying to mix things up for possibly better results, but one thing alot of us forget is that when you play with diets you also play with fire--you can not only hurt yourself inside (metabolically) but emotionally--and that's right, that's when a big old binge comes roaring your way--the type when you can't get the food in your mouth fast enough or you can't quite chew hard enough?
I've learned that the hard way many a time.
Great post and great blog!

Jimmy Moore said...

Sorry you feel the way you do, nessa. I think Kimkins, like any low-carb plan, is a plan that may or may not work for you. If you are only eating a half of a chicken breast, then obviously you needed to be eating more.

While I am following the basics of K/E, a non-calorie-restricted option from Kimkins, I also add a bit more fat and other side items (like yogurt, seeds, sweet pickles, mayo for my salmon salad, and even chocolate when I want it) to customize it to ME. I've said as much at the Kimkins Forums and nobody has objected.

I do agree with you that some of the members at Kimkins lower their calories artificially thinking that will help them lose more. Many complain of being hungry and I tell them EAT MORE PROTEIN and even more fat to satiate their discomforting hunger pangs.

If Kimkins didn't work for you, then I sincerely hope you'll stick to low-carb living. Above all the controversy over Kimkins, that is the most important message people should learn.

THANKS again for sharing your comments about this and again, I apologize if you feel you were misled.

Nessa715 said...

Honestly, Jimmy, I don't feel like I was misled. From the start, I felt like it wasn't the right path for me. And I don't buy into what some people are saying about you being into Kimkins for potential monetary gain. You've been at this too long for that. I truly hope and believe that you are just trying to reach your goal and doing what you believe it takes to get there in the most efficient way.

With strength-training and Atkins, I think you will be able to maintain your goal weight of 198 pounds, no matter how you get there.

I want you to know that your weight loss and your courage in blazing a low carb trail has been inspirational for me.

Yes, I ate too little on Kimkins. I did so because I had very little or no appetite. My mom, who has lung cancer and has been given mere months to live, had more of an appetite than I did. So, that says a lot.

I am back on Atkins, and down 21 pounds now. So, no, my faith in the low carb lifestyle has not wavered.

Sherrie said...

Hey Neesa and Jimmy :)

People say the proof is in the pudding - and "thousands of people are losing weight on Kimkin", but weight loss is not the pudding. The pudding is a healthy body and a healthy relationship with food that lasts for a lifetime. That's my goal and that's what I am reaching for.

I totally love that quote, it is so true!

This is one of my biggest problems with the way kimkins is being portrayed. Firstly, that everyone is marketing it as being like the original Atkins, (they are nothing a like) and secondly, the focus on big and fast weight loss, very dangerous mentality to encourage in my opinion.

The 500 calories on boot camp is ridiculous but even more insane is the required minimum of 30 mins of intense cardio (and if you can 60 mins) daily. A good way to lose even more muscle. Whats worse is there are people even eating less simply because they have no appetite and they are reassured that its okay so long as they are not truly hungry.

I have spoken to a few low carb researchers now on this and none of them could tell me this diet was sound and I have also spoken to someone who worked along side Dr Atkins and he thinks the fat restriction is down right dangerous!

Its great that you are doing this your own way Jimmy but I think maybe you are missing my point.

Its not about how you do it as an individual, it is how everyone else does it, how they interpret it, how precisely they follow it.
My point is that the plans the way they actually are and the comments by kimmer etc regarding fat, starvation, water fasting and using hunger as your guide (which under those extremes is not a good guide) is to me dangerous and irresponsible.

The whole mentality of big numbers, the "quick fix" does not set someone up for a life style change. I think whilst a good way to get attention it is also a reckless way to market it.

The dangers of reducing your fat to low levels... How many times have we all hyped on about the benefits of fat and saturated fats along with the dangers of low fat and yet when it comes to Kimkins it all of a sudden doesn't apply. Are we saying low fat is okay so long as you don't eat carbs???

Or very low calories are okay so long as you don't eat carbs???

That somehow by simply not eating carbs that all bets are off, we can suddenly abuse our bodies in all sorts of ways and it won't matter so long as we have body fat?

My biggest worry is when people do this over a length of time.

Do you remember when you first posted that you were starting kimkins and that you were going to do K/E and then when that slowed down, boot camp? Did you realise how restricted it was when you said that? That it was only around 500 calories?

Sherrie said...

Hey there Adam :)

I have noticed with Kimkins you have a lot who just seem to have almost zero appetite and then you have a bunch of others who wind up in an all out binge fest. Neither seems healthy to me over the long term.

You have a great blog too, I love your latest article on your fears of fat :)

Sherrie said...

I am back on Atkins, and down 21 pounds now. So, no, my faith in the low carb lifestyle has not wavered.

That is great Nessa :)

Sherrie said...

Also Nessa I am very sorry to hear about your mum, I wish you, your mum and your family all the best.

Jimmy Moore said...

Well, God bless you, Nessa! I'm so sorry to hear about your mother and I wish you and your family strength during this difficult time.

I'm proud of you for sticking with Atkins and finding success. It is all about finding what works for you to get you to your ultimate goals.

I've lost 28.2 pounds on Kimkins in just under a month and I look forward to getting to 198 and staying there with Atkins induction and just being more cognizant of what I am eating.

THANK YOU again, Nessa and Sherrie! I appreciate an open dialog with civil discourse. It makes communicating so much better this way. I appreciate the feedback anytime!

Lady Rose said...

I had my doubts about the whole kimkim diet thing - it was catching on too fast and not enoughh solid long term results in yet for all the hype.

This was a very good post - thanks for getting all that out there - I know how much time and effort it takes to write a quality post. It is appreciated.

Health and Happiness, Lady Rsoe

PJ said...

Reading the comments and notes elsewhere, I think the conclusion is, "Jimmy really likes Kimkins because he made it into Jimmikins instead." Yes, I stole that from someone else on a forum. ;-)

I also think that dropping calories and carbs (with or without fat, which he said he hasn't really dropped much) is likely to cause water loss right off just from fewer carbs. I could do this. I wouldn't call it Kimkins. I would call it "cleaning up my diet" and going "back to basics briefly" -- meat, eggs, water.

This doesn't need to be called Kimkins. You can do a "lowcarb" eating plan of Atkins or Eades for example, and simply "vary" the quantity of how much protein, fat, calories, carbs, you choose to take in. I know people on Atkins that don't eat gluten or dairy, that doesn't make them feel the need to come up with a whole new name for the plan. I know people on Atkins that deliberately eat a very high % of fat, via coconut oil and the like. They don't feel the need to give it a new name.

But if this is really all there is to it -- if we all merely allegedly adopt an eating plan, then torque it to fit us, and then advertise how great that plan is -- well you know, darn it Jimmy, you are NOT really on Kimkins by your own testimony, and if it was so great for you, you would be. The fact that you do NOT do it as 'by the book' as you've said people ought to do Atkins, only demonstrates that you don't even think it's tolerable yourself, yet you still advertise it and profit from it.

In a way it's not even fair to Kimkins as a plan, if one of the primary salesmen for the plan isn't even on it! And people give celebrities who sponsor SlimFast but don't even drink it grief -- how is this much different??

Tess said: "I do remember a post at Jimmys blog a few mon ago where I made mention I had dropped my calories to 800 and his respnse was I wasn't eating healthy." This is the kind of thing that makes people feel like contradictions are problematic; now he's a major doorway into a plan that does exactly that.

What needs to be mentioned about Kimkins is that
a - there are several plans, yes. Some are not too unreasonable, within limits depending on your preference. Some would get you into therapy for an eating disorder.
b - there is a lot of controversy about Kim Draka (aka Heidi Diaz, aka Heidi Miller) at the moment, but most of that is not even so much about her official plans -- although the lower calorie ones are nuts IMO -- but about her personal counseling to people, publicly and privately, over many years. It's fine to have a web page that tells people that plan A has 1000 calories a day, but when the reality of the advice has members eating anywhere from 0-500 calories a day, then the plan-on-paper is not the only thing to consider.

What I find weird and unfortunate is that so many people seem to think that in order to do the OBVIOUS thing of "experimenting and adjusting their nutrient intakes depending on their goals and their body's unique experience," that it's like anybody needs to go pay money for it. Yes, it's true, if you want someone to give you daily menus of 480 calories as this blog post or comments examples, you'll need to actually pay the money to adopt the plan. But if you just want to eat less fat or less calories and <20 carbs (not ecc), then for godssakes, just do it!

No big deal.

Eating plans aren't religions.

PJ said...

Drake, not Draka, sorry for the typo but I can't edit comments. ;-)

Sherrie said...

Hello Lady Rose :)

Thanks for your kind words :)

Hey PJ :)

In all honesty I don't know what to think I mean its like hes pulled in 2 directions regarding advertisements/affiliates etc, on one arm he has kimkins and on the arm he has frakenfoods like I think you call it chocoperfection?

So you know, I take it all with a grain of salt because hes gotta keep both happy I guess. Of course kimkins is where the money is for him right now.

I am sorry I am taking so long to post on why I don't like Kimkins. We have all been sick, my partner hasn't been well all year but now the bugger has brought home some bug so were all sick. Last night every time I dozed off my 2 year old would wake me up crying... Sigh kids LOL

But I promise I will update soon, I am still gathering stuff. To top it off all this other commotion going on is awfully distracting aswell LOL
To be honest I am not all that worried about the fake pictures etc, I think its dishonest and enough to not go for such a plan yes but I am more concerned about the actual plans even as written let alone her advice.

Anyway, heres one I found on VLCDs and sudden death:

Its available in full for free too, I havn't read right through it yet, too many distractions here.


S. said...

Thanks for posting this to your blog.

I know there are many diets published in the world, and many if not most are are dangerous, but I fear all this "hype" for Kimkins could really ultimately hurt the lowcarb movement. Many criticize Atkins/etc. because they think that low carb means "high fat". And for some people, that is true, but most people understand that there is a limit to the amount amd type of fat that can be eaten and still maintain/lose weight. I do not see Lowcarb diets as a quick, unsustainable fix, such as Kimkins low-fat, ultra low calorie version.

I think Jimmy needs to remember that Kimkins-type diets appeal not just to people that are stalled after great weight losses... or people that are morbidly obese with now hope... or people with underactive thyroids... Kimkins is being aggressively marketed towards EVERYONE: teens, people that want to lose weight for purely cosmetic reasons,etc. How many people will binge after a few days/weeks of Kimkins and will begin yo-yo dieting, and in general end up with a screwed up metabolism? How many people will ultimately end up weighing more, and risking their health, because they didn't understand the risks of this diet?

And who will be at fault...why it's those dangerous low carb diets.

Sherrie said...

Hello S :)

I couldn't agree more, whats worse is the way its being promoted. The focus is entirely on losing weight fast and that it is a "healthy" way to eat.

To me a "healthy" way to eat is something you can eat indefinately without risk to it damaging your health, mental or physical.

Why not just be honest and promote it as a crash diet that in the MAJORITY results in very low calories, disorded advice and the health risks that go with it.

Paula said...

Hi from the UK and an avid kimkins member.... many of your points seem trivial, soapbox-ish and just plain nothing to do with you. As for the money aspect, i paid £29.99, an absolute bargain, i compare that to weight watchers and add up how much ive spent over the years trying to do that diet again and again and getting so FRUSTRATED with paying £6 per week to be spoken to like a child about food. Kimmer is helpful, friendly, honest and above all healthy. During my time on Kimkins my skin has improved, i have more energy, i am sleeping better and less, and i feel much happier now i am in control of what i eat... yes its low calories, but so is every diet, you have no restriction on definate amounts to eat, bootcamp and kimmers experiment are optional trials you can have a go at, there are often other ones going on, egg whites only, fish only etc and these see great results, nutrients come from the recommended multi vitamin taken each day and you know what? according to my fitday the only ones i lack in are carbs and fibre... big woop.
of course your point about stored toxins, hormones and meds in the fat being melted is valid, all of these are there in most people, and the liver is meant to metabolise these away... as far as i am aware no-one ever got liver disease from dieting eh?
As a species, humans were designed to go for long periods burning the fat stored up when food was not readily available, and just because major supermarkets and food companies make food so readily available doesnt mean everyone should turn to gluttony. the body is a wonderful, intelligent and well designed machine that certainly runs much better burning natural energy like fat than burning glucose.
i for one think your bashing of this site is ridiculous, unecessary and plain green eyed monster, i mean whats it to you anyway? really?

Sherrie said...

"yes its low calories, but so is every diet, you have no restriction on definate amounts to eat, bootcamp and kimmers experiment are optional trials you can have a go at, there are often other ones going on, egg whites only, fish only etc and these see great results, nutrients come from the recommended multi vitamin taken each day"

Thanks for proving my point that I have made on numerous posts regarding this IMO dangerous diet...

No liver damage from dieting eh? Um I think you should check first before spouting off something like that considering there is just such an association with liver problems and rapid weight loss... heck its not just that organ either!

"As a species, humans were designed to go for long periods burning the fat stored up when food was not readily available"

Please go google stefansson and rabbit starvation...

Body fat provides calories.
Dietary fat, provides, nutrients, helps in the absorption of other nutrients such as minerals and fat soluble vitamins and it empties your gall bladder too. It can also help to keep your calories at a safe level. Dietary cholesterol is also important!
As you implied our bodies burn body fat for survival but on that same line a body with good survival instincts ain't going to be happy with losing vast amounts of body fat in a short space of time for too long... after all, it wants to survive as long as possible... as you said the body is a wonderful, intelligent and well designed machine :)

Green eyed monstor? Tell me... what do I have to be jealous of? Weight loss? I lost my weight in a matter on months (in 2002) so nope not jealous about that. Hey I have maintained it and I have current photos and people have met me in real life too!

So that leaves money... well she certainly does have more money then me if shes really sold all those memberships but then anyone who knows me, knows I'm not a monetary person. I judge people on integrity and honesty, heck thats why I am not a fan of her because she appears to have NONE.

What does this mean to me? I have answered that many times already...