MOVED TO LIVINLAVIDALOWCARB.COM/BLOG

PLEASE UPDATE YOUR BOOKMARKS TO LIVINLAVIDALOWCARB.COM/BLOG

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Kimmer's Kimkins: Fast Low-Carb Weight Loss With Lifetime Support To Boot

The post that appeared here has been removed for not promoting the low-carb community in the professional manner I have come to expect from myself. THANK YOU!

Read this blog post for more information.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

7 Comments:

Blogger AnOldHouse said...

Low-carb AND low-fat? Maybe as a one or two week stall buster technique (I'm thinking Atkins Fat Fast here), but not as an on-going core nutritional plan.

Beyond that, all I can say is...welcome to metabolic starvation mode!

Short-term benefits for long-term complications! Rapid weight loss is the hardest to maintain in the long run. And such rapid weight loss (similar to the Oprah-style semi-starvation modified protein-sparing liquid FASTS) should only be done in conjunction with frequent monitoring by a physician because they are dangerous, if at all!

Never eat less than your current BMR: http://health.discovery.com/tools/calculators/basal/basal.html

-David

10/10/2006 11:23 PM  
Blogger Suzique said...

I've been following Kimkins for eight weeks and have lost 31 pounds--not as superfast as some, but at least decent. The program is not low-carb, low-fat. It's low-carb, low-calorie. A great alternative for people like me who have trouble losing on any other diet, even traditional Atkins induction. I have a PhD in metabolic resistance!

Suzique
http://low-carb-lab.blogspot.com

10/11/2006 1:46 PM  
Blogger AnOldHouse said...

The program is not low-carb, low-fat. It's low-carb, low-calorie.

So what's the difference?

What's your macronutrient percentages?

What is your daily caloric intake?

What is your BMR?

10/11/2006 3:55 PM  
Blogger cjcbrown said...

David - a rebuttal. Read more at kimkins.com!

"not as an on-going core nutritional plan."

right, it's for fast fat loss

"welcome to metabolic starvation mode!"
au contraire. protein, vitamins, minerals (and for me omega3s) are all more than adequate. The rest is stored body fat! No starvation happenin.

"Short-term benefits for long-term complications!"
Nope! none that are not also true of any fat loss approach.

"Rapid weight loss is the hardest to maintain in the long run."

Nope! any weight loss has similar abysmal maintenance stats.

"And such rapid weight loss (similar to the Oprah-style semi-starvation modified protein-sparing liquid FASTS) should only be done in conjunction with frequent monitoring by a physician "

ANY fat loss is best done with regular doc check-ins. Fast is no different.

"because they are dangerous, if at all!"

Opinion alert! I say, fast weight loss with improvement of all medical markers, and no bad symptoms, is SAFE, not dangerous.

"Never eat less than your current BMR: http://health.discovery.com/tools/calculators/basal/basal.html"

a) that calculator overestimates morbidly obese short women by at least 50%

b) no calculator that I know of, used such women in their original data set. Hence, a guess at best.

Measuring actual outcomes is so much better!

10/11/2006 4:43 PM  
Blogger AnOldHouse said...

David - a rebuttal. Read more at kimkins.com!

Actually, I already did!

"not as an on-going core nutritional plan."

Interesting that statement is not to be found on the main page, which, of course is just a commercial advertisement to get you to pay the $29.95 fee. So, exactly where is that statement buried or do I have to cough up the fee first to discover that little nugget of information?

"welcome to metabolic starvation mode!"
au contraire. protein, vitamins, minerals (and for me omega3s) are all more than adequate. The rest is stored body fat! No starvation happenin.


Metabolic starvation mode has only to do with inadequate calories being consumed. I still see no evidence of caloric sufficiency. So, just how many calories are you consuming on this low-calorie plan?

"Short-term benefits for long-term complications!"
Nope! none that are not also true of any fat loss approach.

"Rapid weight loss is the hardest to maintain in the long run."

Nope! any weight loss has similar abysmal maintenance stats.


No problem maintaining long-term after slow and steady, healthful weightloss on committed low-carb lifestyle plan. So, is Kimkins a sustainable lifetime maintenance plan?

"because they are dangerous, if at all!"

Opinion alert! I say, fast weight loss with improvement of all medical markers, and no bad symptoms, is SAFE, not dangerous.


Just as much your opinion as mine!

"Never eat less than your current BMR: http://health.discovery.com/tools/calculators/basal/basal.html"

a) that calculator overestimates morbidly obese short women by at least 50%
b) no calculator that I know of, used such women in their original data set. Hence, a guess at best.


Really? So tell us what the "flawed" calculator comes up with for you. Then tell us how many calories you're eating per day, okay?

Measuring actual outcomes is so much better!

I totally agree! Successful outcomes of weight loss are measured by how long you can maintain after losing, not how quickly you can lose.

-David

10/11/2006 10:56 PM  
Blogger Quinadal said...

She actually tells someone in her blog that 600 calories a day is FINE and won't cause problems!
http://www.kimkins.com/blog/p,10/

10/12/2006 8:45 AM  
Blogger PJ at TDLC said...

I've been on PPLP (not kimkins) for 1 month, and lost 36lbs. Though my high weight surely is much of that. I'm losing an average of 1/2 a lb a day while eating up to 20 carbs even though my calories are usually far too low 'officially'. Not on purpose. It's just darn difficult to get enough calories sometimes.

I don't think the weight loss speed Kimmers is talking about is much different than someone seriously doing Atkins and beginning seriously obese would have, so I don't think she can take hits for being unsafe or something; plenty of people with huge weight losses did the majority of it in a surprisingly short initial time.

I think it's great that she has made a job of 'coaching' other people on a lowcarb eating plan. I agree that more than 600 calories is needed for life but a day now and then that low hasn't killed me either, and I did that without her influence.

She wouldn't have time to do it with people if it wasn't for pay, and plenty of people desperately need the support of someone in a leadership position and the support of a community that is tight. Seems to me, if her participants are relatively satisfied, and they lose weight, and they enjoy the community, that she's got a pretty good thing going.

I appreciate debate and alternative opinions but I guess I don't get the seeming hostility in some of these comments.

10/18/2006 10:49 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home