Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Formaldehyde in clothes

I just wanted to quickly share this article, I was looking at it last night, almost every clothing item of Mayas that I have checked are from China...

Heres a snippet:

New Zealand's Target program tested common items of clothing made in China but New Zealand, like Australia, has no safe levels for formaldehyde, a known cancer cause.

At just 20 parts per million, the chemical can induce rashes, headaches, dizziness, joint pain, fatigue, asthma and in the extreme case - cancer.

Remember 20 parts per million is considered high, but the test results from New Zealand were incredible.

Women's corduroys: 290 parts per million.
A spiderman T-shirt: 1,400 parts per million.
Pyjamas: 3,400.
Kids pants: 16,000 parts per million.
White stain resistant pants: 18,000 parts per million.

That's nearly 900 times a reasonable safe level.

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Minister, Peter McGauran, ordered authorities to find out what's going on.

"(It's) totally unacceptable. Australian authorities have been caught unprepared," he said.


Article: Formaldehyde in clothes

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Low-carbohydrate nutrition and metabolism

Hey I just found this review and wanted to share, you can read the full text here on American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract:

Low-carbohydrate nutrition and metabolism

The persistence of an epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes suggests that new nutritional strategies are needed if the epidemic is to be overcome. A promising nutritional approach suggested by this thematic review is carbohydrate restriction. Recent studies show that, under conditions of carbohydrate restriction, fuel sources shift from glucose and fatty acids to fatty acids and ketones, and that ad libitum–fed carbohydrate-restricted diets lead to appetite reduction, weight loss, and improvement in surrogate markers of cardiovascular disease.

Friday, August 17, 2007

My Reply to Deni

Okay first up sorry I haven't put up part 2 yet of The low fat side of the Kimkins Diet but I have been busy and the yesterday got caught up in chatting which I think is stemming from me not being focused . I don't know if its like this with everyone or I'm just a wierdo LOL but I'm either totally focused/in the mood or I'm not. Yesterday I was not, I will try to be today and finish it off, I promise :)

Anyway, I just wanted to post a reply of mine to a comment made to me by Deni on her blog. She is a moderator for the Kimkins forum and unfortunately when I try to reply, I get an error saying that only "team members" are allowed which I found disappointing, as I have not been rude or anonymous.

Anyway, this is for Deni, so you don't have to read on but I don't care if you do. It appears, one of the anti-kimkins sites picked up on her blog post, so you have probably read about her post that I am referring to in my reply to her.

-----------

Deni, everything I said was in line with the focus of your post. First off, I pointed out that there are plenty of limits in fats and proteins. But more importantly, one of your points was that it was the people on the plan who were at fault for any bad eating?

That I find totally wrong and I do not think that way of thinking is what ANY lord would want to encourage.

Let me explain...

The reason why I bought up Christin and Kimmer is because like yourself, they set a huge example to the followers of the plan. People are encouraged to emulate the weight loss journey of success stories like yours and Christin. People look up to you, they have total faith and trust in the things you say. People are doing what they are doing UNDER your influences.

The majority of people on your forum are put onto a path of doing a VLCD. VLCD's whilst well known to curb hunger, also come with a lot of risks and thus should only ever be instructed and supervised by professionals experienced in their application.

I should add just in case you don't realise a VLCD is anywhere (depending on the study) from ≤ 800 to 1000 calories per day.

Just because someone doesn't feel hungry doesn't mean that they are totally out of harms way.

The worst bit is people aren't made aware of the inherent risks nor is their any true science behind the diet, you can't just pop a multi vitamin and hope that covers everything. The attitude in regards to dietary fat is also not true, particularly in the context of a low carbohydrate diet. Sure you have body fat, but body fat provides calories only, it does not provide any other nutrition. But on top of that rapid weight loss alone comes with its own set of risks to health.

There is also a huge risk in gall bladder health from VLCD, skipping meals and rapid weight loss alone let alone together, infact I have seen in studies risks go up to 54% and stones occur in as early as 4 weeks during VLCD diets. Plus obesity, diabetes etc are all risk factors on their own as well.

Also this abstinence with beef/red meat/dairy that most people seem to follow is also potentially risky in regards to important fatty acids, proteins and minerals. Minerals that are also important for weight loss, hormonal and mental health.

You know there are people that seemed perfectly fine suddenly die from doing VLCD diets with inadequate nutrition.

I could go on...

Your plans that you guys promote have no true scientific or nutritional background, just a set of vague and misleading rules. There are no minimums to ensure adequate nutrition other then a multi-vitamin which IS NOT satisfactory. There are no real warnings of the risks either. But not only that there is the mistaken belief that simply by not feeling hungry whilst eating little reassures you that your eating enough and if you feel sick to your stomach (SNATT) then that means the diet is working.

In fact, it is all pretty much left up to the interpretation of the dieter and with all the anti-fat guidelines, promoting of rapid weight loss and ignorance there is no question where that interpretation will most likely lead.

A prime example of this is through your very own Christin whom was mentioned on the kimkins exposed blog. Here are some examples allegedly in Christin's own words that I found on this blog all the whilst her average calorie intakes over six months fell below 700 calories a day (See what I mean about Kimmers Experiment still being low calorie despite not having an "official" limit in calories!):

There is nothing “magical” or unique about what I was able to accomplish. It is not an easy journey though, and I wanted to give you a few things that have helped me a long the way and hopefully answer some of your questions as well….Under the guidelines given by Kimmer this program consists of lean proteins, no extras. So, during the time I was using KE I did just that. No EXTRAS no cheese, no extra fats, no supplements. I found that the best and quickest loss for me was attained when I stayed within the list…


Fat – The point of this program is QUICK and HEALTHY weight loss. One of the things that sets Kimkins apart from other Low Carb programs is the fact that we chose to use the leanest proteins that are available to us. We will still be consuming some fat with our proteins, but the goal is as little as possible. This can also be attained by choosing even lower fat options of allowed proteins. For example: boneless/skinless chicken breast vs whole chicken on the bone; egg whites or egg beaters vs whole eggs, lean fresh ground turkey breast vs pre-ground turkey, and of course fresh fish is always a fantastic option. These are just some options that are available to you in choosing lean proteins. If you want a number to shoot for though, my guideline for myself was under 20g of fat per day, never over 30g.


That is what your members are seeing Deni, and that IS NOT HEALTHY. I don't care what her blood test results were, that doesn't speak for everyone or make such advice good and responsible advice which it is not.

You know those improvements in cholesterol, triglycerides and blood sugars can be found on the numerous low carb diets that are out there absolutely jam packed with fats, you do not have to starve your body and risk it's health to achieve that. In fact if I can find it again I will post a study sometime that I read a while back that showed some negative effects on HDL/LDL and trigs through a VLCD diet.

You can turn around and say well shes just sharing her experience, we're not telling anyone to do it or we said you should check this with your doctor, all that is, is a legal formality, morally it does not excuse it.

Before I decided to take a stance on this I contacted many researchers that were not only doctors but experienced in researching low carbohydrate diets and treating obesity for advice. Not one could support it Deni.

Its great to share experiences and support people Deni, but at the same token we have to take responsibility for what we say, support and encourage when we put ourselves in a position where people look up to us. Even if say the advice your giving is really good, by turning a blind eye to other potentially dangerous advice you are still supporting it. By linking to the website, by telling people to join, by being an affiliate, by having your success story up there, YOU ARE STILL SUPPORTING ALL THAT GOES ON THERE.

What experience do you have in VLCD dieting, nutrition and obesity for you to know for sure that yours and others advice and the kimkins plans full stop are nutritionally sound?

You can't just expect to place all blame onto the members joining, that is simply just not fair.

I don't think ANY lord would want that.

This all said, I don't think you mean any ill will but at the same token morally you still have to be accountable just like Christin, Kimmer and anyone else. After all, these peoples health, trust and possibly even their lives are in your hands.


 



Some 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...

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Kimkins Petition

Just wanted to share, that someone has put up an online petition against Kimkins:


To: Federal Trade Commission, Better Business Bureau, California Attorney General

Believing it to be true that Kimkins.com is promoting medically unsound and potentially life-threatening diet plans in which many followers have complained of one or more of the following:

� Dizziness
� Nausea
� Muscle fatigue or weakness
� Heartbeat palpitations
� Moderate to severe hair loss
� Bone and joint pain
� Mental changes - irritability, forgetfulness, confusion
� Bowel complications/symptoms of laxative abuse

And that the founder of Kimkins, known as �Kimmer� ;

� is not certified or licensed in any way to dispense nutritional and medical advice
� claims to have lost 198 lbs. but has never provided solid evidence of such loss, having refused to be interviewed in person
� has advised the daily use of laxatives extended beyond products� warnings
� has pushed diet followers to stay as low in calories as possible, even as low as 0-300 calories a day
� has used questionable marketing techniques to generate membership revenues by:

-- displaying false �before/after� testimonials
-- using viral marketing techniques such as the willful misplanting that young celebrities have followed the plan in order to target a younger demographic, including pre-teens
-- has allowed affiliates to spam many valid forums with misleading information
-- advertising the acquisition of an e-book as included in the membership fee, which she never produced

We, the undersigned hereby request that this website, Kimkins.com and its founder, �Kimmer� be properly investigated in an expedient manner so as to prevent harm from coming to more individuals who might try these plans.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned


If you agree with these concerns, you can sign the petition here: Request For Kimkins Investigation

 

Monday, August 13, 2007

The low fat side of the Kimkins Diet, Part 1

Low Fat Side of Kimkins parts 2 and 3


Hey guys I am splitting this up in two parts as it is getting awfully long. I have been working on this for a couple of weeks now but with us being sick, Maya having food intolerance reactions and then some dramas with my website being down the last four days my time or ability to concentrate lol hasn't been too crash hot. Anyway I have not quite finished the last part but I thought I should put the kimkins bit up now and then tommorrow put up the rest as it is looking too long as I type it out. I have also just started putting together some of the research on VLCD's that I have bookmarked into a page but there is still tons to add but feel free to have a look: Research on Risks of Very Low Calorie Diets.

This post here is just some concerns of mine regarding kimkins, I have seen a lot of people try to deny the very low fat and calorie side of this diet or people try to say claim the safety of Kimkins based on their own success when they did not really do it. So I wanted to make a few points about why I don't see it that way.

The next part I will go into concerns regarding gallstones, rapid weight loss and lean protein (aka Stefannson and the "rabbit diet").


I thought, a good topic to post on would be the fat intake, as the more and more I read up on about kimkin's and other's fitdays the more I see how extremely "anti-fat" this diet is.

There are 2 reasons why this concerns me, first and foremost is health reasons, more on that in part 2. But second is the association of this with low carb diets, low carb was never meant to be low fat, pure and simple. As a low carb community we have fought tooth and nail to show that good stable fat's are not unhealthy, particularly in the context of a low carbohydrate diet, same thing with cholesterol. Yet on the various kimkins plans both saturated fats and cholesterol are kept extremely low. This diet isn't about low carbing in the true sense of the word, in my opinion, carbs are only reduced in order to make the VLCD (very low calorie diet) more tolerable. In other words so you can starve without hunger...

Then you have Kimmer and crew (whomever does the web and SEO stuff with her) promoting Kimkins as the "healthy" alternative to Atkins with this anti-fat, saturated fat garbage....

For those that don't know there are a bunch of dummy sites aimed at bringing in more members by touting the same anti-Atkins garbage.

The last thing I want to see is low fat being made fashionable in low carb circles and undo all the work that has and still is being done by the various doctors, researchers and other people to prove the merits of low carb, fat and cholesterol.

If you are new to low carb and are following Kimkins or any of the said to be low carb "shake" diets such as Tony Ferguson which I have posted about before then I encourage you to read at least one of the more popular low carb books such as Atkins New Diet Revolution (2002 edition is a good one), Protein Power Lifeplan, Natural Health & Weight Loss and Life Without Bread so you can understand the true meaning of low carbohydrate dieting and understand where many of us are coming from. I will make sure to add some links to some good articles on fats at the bottom of this article as well.

I have seen many retorts that go something along the lines of...

"the kimkin's plan I am on does not limit calories"

"Kimmer says you can have just enough fat that makes your menu work, so it is not low fat, just moderate fat"

"I am doing mine a bit different so it has more fat and calories"

Hey if you are doing yours a bit different and eating above your BMR then good for you but that doesn't mean Kimkins per se is okay. Considering, her plans and guidelines (let alone advice) for such plans don't really advocate that if you want the kind of results the diet is popular for, it just means your really just doing a typical low carb diet like Atkins whilst watching your calories!

I hear of many people doing the Kimkins diet more sensibly such as, higher calories and fat and cycling one week of kimkins with four to six weeks of Atkins. That's certainly a lot better then doing Kimkins the way it is meant to be done, but it doesn't validate Kimkins whatsoever. Kimkins promises you rapid weight loss, that is the krux of her plan and why it is sooo popular. BUT in order to achieve those promises that Kimmer and her crew promise you, that her success stories claim... then the majority of you will have to cut your diet down to the bare bones. Thus, I cannot see how doing the kimkins diet in a more sensible manner can vouch for her diet being a good one let alone for its safety.

Her success stories, the stories that are the "proof" of how successful her diet is... how much were they all eating?

How much was Christin eating?

What about all the other girls that newbies are pointed to, to use as a guideline for their own kimkins weight loss?

I think we all know the answer to that one...

And another thing to keep in mind, when you come across websites for kimkins success stories, they are most likely an affiliate that gets paid to promote it and thus may have a hidden agenda.

In my opinion, Kimkins is NOT a low carb diet it is a VLCD diet and thus the dangers that go along with a VLCD diet go right along with the Kimkins diet except the Kimkins diet has no real scientific structure behind it nor is it and the advice, medically supervised like all VLCD's should be.

For those that still insist that any of her plans are okay and not low fat or low calories. Apart from the fact that all plans involve lean protein, how about we look at the alleged kimkins guidelines and tips that are presented with these plans when you sign up, such as...


"Use minimal fat for cooking"

"Use low calorie salad dressings and "light" butter substitutes"

"Don't add fat when preparing foods, e.g. grill meat, discard dripping, steam and bake fish, boil and poach eggs"

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

"Cook by any low fat method listed above"

"Remove the skin before cooking"

"Trim all visible fat"

"Replace meat with fish as often as possible"

"Replace red meat with white meat - eat chicken, turkey or ostrich instead of steak or chops"

"Beef should be eaten rarely for fastest weight loss results"

"Have meatless meals regularly, replacing meat with pasta or legumes (dry beans, peas and lentils, Toppers and textured vegetable protein dishes)"

"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"

My gosh what fat does that leave???

Then you have her protein shake plan, where you can replace your meals with "homemade" protein shakes with guidelines on the limits of calories, carbs and protein but no guidelines for fat, minerals or any other nutrients!

Example, in Australia at least, you buy a tub of low carb protein powder designed for bodybuilders from a health food shop and right there on the label with the directions is a warning that it can not be used as a meal replacement... why do you think that is?

I have seen menus where people are eating 5-10g of fat a day, menus where people are only eating egg whites or just 4 bites of chicken and a coffee but not only that she tells them if they are not hungry then its okay!

I have seen people try and justify their fat intake with percentages, sure the percentage of fat isn't extremely low for some BUT if you are following her guidelines then it will most likely be because you are already eating low calories. Bring those calories up to a sensible level whilst keeping the fat to a similar level and watch that percentage plummet!

If you are following any authoritative type of "guidelines" to justify your fat percentage, just keep in mind that as well as the fact that these guidelines are in the context of a high carb diet, these types of guidelines use percentages based on say a 2000 calorie diet not a 500 calorie often seen on Kimkins. That makes a big difference in the amount of fat you eat as I will illustrate below...

To show this I made up a kimkins bootcamp menu minus the small amount of limited veggies. I used 2 large eggs, 2 oz lean ham, and 2 times 4 oz raw chicken breast. This gave me:

477 cals 20g fat 1g carb 68g protein and the percentages worked out to be 39% fat 1 % carbs and 60% protein

So then I decided to use kimmers maintenance menu that she posted on LCF which allegedly runs between 1200-1400 calories as an example for foods to add to it plus I added in a glass of milk as she claims in Jimmy's interview that she has a little milk...
Now I was hoping to go for a higher calorie menu by using her as a guide, but I had trouble getting over 1200 calories (suprise, suprise) which was supposedly her bottom end. But if you go by her interview with Jimmy it is now 1400-1700 calories (yeah right!). So the menu of 1168 calories will have to do. I did not add any sauces etc as she states in that post that she doesn't use them for maintenance. What we have now is:

2 large eggs, 2 oz lean ham, 8 oz whiting, 8 oz raw skinless chicken breast, 2 cups salad greens, 1 cup spinach, 1 cup raw cauliflower, 1 cup boiled potato, 1 x 100 calorie danone yoghurt, 1 cup no fat milk and 1 medium banana.

This came to 1168 calories, 26g fat, 86g carbs and 150g of protein. Percentages were, 21% fat, 25% carbs and 54% protein.

So here we have a 477 calorie menu with 39% fat turn into a 1168 cal menu and 21% fat even though the fat has increased slightly in the second menu by 6 grams. Could you imagine the fat percentage if it was 1500 cals with fat kept low? :eek:

This is why when eating low in calories you shouldn't be relying on a percentage to say that you are eating enough fat and why you should be adding fat back in to increase those calories. Do not make the mistake of increasing your calories with low fat products or fruit and veggies only. Of course, if you have been low fatting it and want to change that, then please add your fats in gradually to give your body a chance to make the enzymes needed.

If you are interested in working out calories based on your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate), I have put up some information here: BMR and Calories

For those that are new to low carb I want to add here some good articles off the top of my head for you to read regarding fat and low carb:

The truth About Saturated Fats


Why low carb diets must be high fat not high protein

The Cure For Diabetes


Eat Fat to Lose Fat

What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?

Regina's Keys to Success Series

Okay that should do it, look out for part 2!

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
July 18: Is Kimkins okay because its simply low carb?
July 15: Kimkins and Kimmer
June 13: Okay Some Kimkins Stuff...

Sunday, August 05, 2007

Kimkins is not Atkins

Sorry I have taken so long but we have all been sick over the last few weeks, started to get better and then by the end of last weekend it started to hit again, so we're all sick again *bleh* but on the mend now!

I am working on a post as we speak but I just saw this article by a lady who worked along side Dr Atkins for 30 years and wanted to share it with those who get Atkins and Kimkins confused as they are nothing a like.

Check it out: Kimkins is not Atkins