Clearing The Air On The Kimkins Controversy
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.
Read this blog post for more information.
Labels: Atkins, criticism, diet, fat, healthy, hunger, Jimmy Moore, Karen E. Miller, Kimkins, Livin' La Vida Low-Carb, low-calorie, low-carb, low-fat
posted by Jimmy Moore at
2/26/2007 11:29:00 PM
18 Comments:
I couldn't agree with you more, Jimmy. Well said. We are all different individuals and have our own, personal, unique metabolisms. There is no such thing as "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Diet" like some of these fanatic vegetarians keep yelling. We all respond differently and have our own unique set of nutritional requirements.
But that is exactly one of the many reasons I love your blog, man! You, in marked contrast to all those self-proclaimed "experts" out there, recognize and understand this fundamental Law of Nature! This is exactly what makes your experiences and advice so valuable... the fact that is it based on Reality (with a capital R) instead of some armchair (nutritional) theorist's wet dream.
With all due respect to Karen, but you simply lead the way, so to speak, for anybody -independent of their individual differences- to health and a way do really do something significant to the War on Obesity; because that's what it is, a war, with millions upon millions of casualties each and every year.
So, to the contrary, your efforts don't deserve criticism, but instead it's a clear and distinctive ADVANTAGE over all the politically correct, party-line polarized nonsense out there!
Keep up the good work!
Many of us once bought into the low fat dogma as the only way to lose weight and discovered through repeated failure that it isn't. The only appropriate dietary dogma is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Find what works for you and stick to it.
One thing I like about the on-line low carb community is that there isn't a lot of quibbling over which plan is the best. We're all accepted because we embrace some form of low carb and dissenters are usually allowed. I also like the fact that you allow open discussion and contrary opinions. If the medical establishment would only take a "whatever works for you" attitude, more people would actually improve their health.
Hi Jimmy! As someone who used Kimkins to kick start my weight loss, I can say that those doing the boot camp are going very low calorie and fat. It's not uncommon at all to see people posting their menus and claiming less than 800 calories a day. I've seen a few menus that concerned me, because they were so very low.. some even not eating at all for several days. (Don't read that as an endorsement by Kimmer.. I don't remember reading about fasting being part of her plan at all. But people will always take plans and then adjust them to their ideas.) But if they can stick with it, it doesn't compromise their health, and it works.. I'm not going to cry foul. Since boot camp is the only area of the forum I really read much, I can't say what those doing regular Kimkins or KE are doing. But many doing the boot camp are losing very quickly and using these methods.
I realized a few days a go that what I was doing was really more like the older version of Atkins than Kimkins, because I simply can't go without the fat. I get too hungry. There are days when I use the boot camp menu and guidelines, but it's not often. I do not like being hungry either and generally a little fat added to my meals or snacks can carry me for quite a while.
So I guess technically your post condradicts Kimkins - BUT you never said that your way was the one and only way. You simply stated what you've found to work best for you, and many others, in regards to hunger. Hunger will kill a diet everytime. I should know.. I've given up on several diets over the years for that very reason. Why be hungry if you don't have to?
Your efforts on this blog are truly appreciated, so keep it up!
I'm glad to see this discussion here, Jimmy. I was on the Kimkins plan for several months and, maybe I'm a weak-willed ninny, but it's not for the faint of heart. I wasn't losing weight on about 1100 calories a day, and when I submitted my menus, was told I was eating too much fat and too many calories. I finally was able to lose at between 800-900 calories a day. But I was miserable. Only when I increased my fat and quit counting calories--and went from Kimkins back to Atkins--was I able to start losing again.
Kimkins works great for a lot of folks, and Atkins works great for others. And when I stalled on Atkins I switched over to more of a South Beach-type plan and am losing again. When it stalls I will go back to Atkins. The important thing is to stay focused and be flexible. There are lots of ways to "work" low carb and "carb conscious."
Bottom line is, "Your Mileage May Vary" is a cliche for a reason!
While I've never seen you actually promote a typical low fat diet as a good weight loss program, I have seen you often say that if a low fat diet is what works for someone, and they can truthfully say that they don't mind eating that way for the rest of their lives, then they should go for it. It's really all about finding what works for you, and sticking with it.
Same with kimkins vs. Atkins - if one isn't working or doesn't fit what you'd consider a good lifetime way of eating, try the other. Or some version of low carb or even a low fat diet, just do something, try something other than continue to gain weight!
Reading Karen's comments she says that she has no problems with the Kimkins plan. Yes it is "monotonous" and "restrictive" but she likes it anyway.
One of the reasons I started to do Atkins was because it was not "monotonous" and "restrictive". It can become a way of life which is really what you want it to be anyway.
Calianna and JoyceeJ, you both NAILED it! GREAT summary of what I was attempting to communicate.
Calianna and JoyceeJ, you both NAILED it! GREAT summary of what I was attempting to communicate.
As a person who strongly believes both that "all white powders are addictive" (I think the Eades said that) and in the biblical restrictions on diet, I can tell you that, one, avoiding pork and shellfish and not eating red meat and diary products together improves your health and your diet 100%. But while that eliminates a lot of bad enzymes and bad fats from your diet, trying not to use olive oil or other healthy fats with your food will drive me crazy with hunger. I tried that and it didn't work at all. And I can't just live on chicken and fish, either. I tried avoiding red meat completely and ended up sneaking out and binging on (cheese-free) hamburgers (with white flour buns!) at a local fast food joint. At the bottom, even the Bible says to enjoy your red meat as often as you like - really! (Deut. 12:15) And traditional middle eastern and mediterranian people dip bread and veggies right into olive oil and eat it, and eat fresh butter and cheeses daily - and they're not overweight until they start eating western foods! I think honestly you do far better to just avoid all processed foods and non-organic foods and go low on the carbs than to try and limit fats so much. At least for me, low fat, even with low carb, was a disaster.
I was beginning to wonder if we would hear from you, Karen. I'm so glad you responded!
I'm sincerely sorry you feel that way, Karen, but I thought my response was quite compassionate compared with what I could have said about your rather aggressive interrogation about what I do here at my blog.
It's just too bad you couldn't see where I was coming from and understand that my purpose is not to be a one-trick pony pinning myself as an "Atkins blog." Sure, I love the Atkins diet, but I realize other plans work very well for others...like Kimkins!
If you thought my response was "ridicule, mocking, and outright hostility," then apparently you are much more sensitive than you need to be about this. I am who I am and I won't be changing just because you got your feelings hurt. If you did not expect me to respond to your concerns, then perhaps you should have thought twice before making them public.
I am more than happy to be challenged on anything I write about here. That's why I have allowed your diatribe to be the focus of an entire blog post because I wanted others to chime in with their responses as well.
You really should read what some of your fellow readers have written in response to you. Most agree with me that my response was appropriate and they realize this blog is about so much more than just promoting one certain diet over another.
Again, THANK YOU for bringing up this issue because I'm sure there were others who may have felt the same way you did. It's unfortunate that you have made this into a personal grudge against me by calling me names, but I forgive you.
As I have said many times, I'm all about encouraging and educating people about losing weight and getting healthy here at my blog. In the grand scheme of things, nothing else truly matters.
THANKS again for sharing your comments, Karen!
@karen:
Please don't feel offended. Why not? Because it clearly wasn't meant that way. Over the years, Jimmy has grown his own unique style, which is highly effective and clearly drives home the point. That's exactly what's needed when one does what he does, and often the hallmark of a person with leadership qualities. And yes, I think he does provide leadership here! If we consider the War on Obesity indeed a War (and I think we should), he's something like Winston Churchill was to so many in the dark days of WWII: A beacon of truth in a raging sea of lies and deceptions, a person with well-argued, no-nonsense and often very outspoken, steadfast, unwavering opinion based on hard facts, pulling no punches and being straight-to-the-point. Not very elegant sometimes, perhaps, but that's exactly what is required to be effective in times of war.
He, again like Churchill, has something what I presume I could call the "Colpo-factor": without making the topic at hand into a complete mockery one is often rolling over the floor laughing as he, systematically, blow-by-blow, reduces delusional arguments and "beliefs" of "experts" into piles of rubble. I, for one, absolutely love it. It is exactly what is needed to wake people up in these times of politically correct but scientifically completely unfounded nonsense. In other words he's the right person at the right time, just like Churchill was the exactly right person and personality at the right time.
Don't forget that he most likely is confronted every single day with hundreds of (real) attacks, even threats, all kinds of nonsense and mountains of lies. One has to develop a very thick skin to survive all that. Even a "heavyweight" like Colpo threw in the towel at some point in time, and nobody can blame him for that.
As a result, he may be perceived as harsh sometimes. Just like Churchill, he is only interested in what needs to be done to win the War. Anything that is effective would be that answer. And personally I agree with that.
Again, don't be offended or feel hurt. It obviously wasn't meant that way, he was just being himself: extremely clear about his opinion and effective in his response. I must be having a "churchill-day" or something, but in this case he wasn't being the Lion but, to quote him again: "...I merely provided the roar".
I just want to say Kimkins isn't lower fat it is low fat, simple as that really. Water fasting is encouraged too I believe.
Its up to people what they do but as others have mentioned above it isn't a WOL it is a diet.
I am suprised a Kimkins supporter is offended though? Jimmys blog is probably the most supportive of the diet I have seen? He would have to have bought many new members there so not sure why there is a problem?
Hi Jimmy,
I enjoyed your Clearing The Air On The Kimkins Controversy.
I totally agree with you not all diets are for everyone. Perhaps those
achieving success on Kimkins need less dietary fat due to individual
differences in metabolism, sex, weight, dieting history, level of exercise, and
even medications taken.
In 'Atkins For Life' Dr. Atkins pointed out "Don't skimp on natural fats.
Trying a low fat version of Atkins will make you hungrier – and
more susceptible to cravings." Page 56.
As an active amateur bodybuilder who can start losing bodyfat on 1800
calories a day, if I tried to eat 500 calories a day, I'd be eating my own fingers off too.
The young lady who insists you need to endorse either one program OR the other, and not allow
for leeway that both can be viable options for different individuals is short sighted and seems angry.
Unfortunately, making you the target of her anger is not productive.
Being irritable and angry can be a symptom of low fat and low calorie diets. I suspect her mood would improve
with higher dietary fat. I know a chunk of Brie cheese and buttered apple slices makes me happy!
As Always, Regards, Carol
I don't get it. I have looked into Kimkins thoroughly, paying the $50 to join the site (back when it was still $50) and even reading through a lot of Kimmer's stuff on LCF from way back in the day. Both Kimmer and many of her weight loss success stories lose the weight on less than 800 calories per day, 70-90 grams of protein, less than 20 grams of fat and less than 12 grams of carbs. As much as I want to be thin, I can't convince myself in any way that this is a healthy way to lose weight. Am I missing something?
THANKS for commenting, Nessa. But I've been on Kimkins for five days so far and have not once eaten less than 800 calories in a day. I think this is one of the big rumors about this plan that float around out there in cyberspace unchallenged and people just accept it as true.
While my fat intake is a little lower than it was when I was on Atkins, the carb intake is about the same and I am eating virtually the exact same foods I was eating in 2004 to lose 180 pounds!
I can understand your incredulity at all the people who have seen amazing weight loss success because it is indeed fabulous. But keep in mind this isn't just about being thin, but also being healthy.
If you had a choice between obesity and thin, which would you prefer? I think you know the answer to that question. And you deserve it, too, so I hope you reconsider and give it a shot.
After all, you got a LIFETIME membership, so USE IT! ;)
Here is Kimmer's response to you, Nessa:
There's nothing remotely dangerous with lower calories. In fact, the very purpose of gastric surgery for obesity is to limit calories to 500 for months and hopefully permanently reduce calorie intake.
Let's take a typical Kimkins dinner of grilled skinless chicken breast, 1 cup of mixed greens and maybe 1/2 cup of broccoli. Rings in around 350 calories. If we switch this to a Weight Watcher meal by adding 1/2 cup of rice and 1 piece of bread with butter, the calories raise to 450. What extra "nutrition" was added?
Before anyone starts thinking "starvation mode" do a simple calculation. Multiply the pounds of fat you have to lose by 3500. Whoa, what a shock! That's the amount of "food" you have hanging on your body.
Please see this blog blurb on "Are You Afraid to Lose Fast?" and another one "Is Starvation Mode Real?"
What is dangerous is remaining overweight and waking up tomorrow as a type 2 diabetic. Once you are, you are. No going back. You can control your diabetes, but you can't cure it and it can happen at any time if you're obese.
Keep in mind that regular Kimkins has no calorie restriction. Our Boot Camp option has limited portions which does limit calories to a degree, but mainly low calories come from appetite suppression due to ketosis.
Kimmer
I do have to comment on your saying that there is a rumor floating around that is not true. Kimmer HERSELF told me that there was nothing wrong with eating 300 calories a DAY. She said it herself TO me. She and I argued over this and she wouldn't listen to reason. I am happy you are losing on Kimkins but I hope you are seeing your doctor to make sure your heart and vital organs are not affected by this plan. You are lucky you are on the boarder of too low in calories. Kimmer tells people to go lower and lower in calories once they stall and this is where it gets dangerous.
I dare you to post this on your blog. Personally I think you delete most negative posts.
THANK YOU for your comments, Lowcarb. But you are just wrong. I've been on Kimkins and NOT ONCE has Kimmer instructed me to cut my calories anywhere near 300 or at all for that matter.
The version of Kimkins I am on is NOT calorie-restricted. While it is slightly lower in fat than what I was doing on the Atkins diet when I lost my weight in 2004, it's not much different than the weight loss phase I've been through already.
When did you actually SPEAK to Kimmer. I know her personally through e-mail, but I've never spoken with her on the telephone as you claim you have.
What I do know about her, she is not the kind of person would would argue and not listen to reasoned arguments. I'm not doing her plan exactly as she would have me do it, but NOT ONCE has she said a word about it.
Why?
That's what losing 28.8 pounds in 30 days will do! I'm LOSING WEIGHT and that's the bottom line. My doctor is THRILLED to see my weight going down even more than it did when I was on Atkins.
Kimkins is not about calorie-restriction, it's about calorie control so that you can finally lose weight where you couldn't before. This is done naturally by slightly lowering the fat intake and it's working well for me.
If you don't like Kimkins, then don't do it. But, again, I will reiterate that you are DEAD WRONG about what Kimmer recommends when people have stalls. She promotes eating plenty of protein and counting all carbohydrates rather than subtracting as you do on Atkins.
Sensationalism is great for the tabloids. But when it comes to my blog, I would appreciate it if you just stick to the facts, my friend.
As for this claim that I "delete most negative posts" that are sent to me by my readers, again you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. I post ALL of the comments that are sent to me except under the following conditions--
1. Contains a link to commerce web site.
2. Does not pertain to the specific post.
3. Is especially vulgar or obscene.
Since your post was none of those three, I have no problem sharing your comments--even if I disagree.
THANK YOU again for sharing and I appreciate your opinions.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home