MOVED TO LIVINLAVIDALOWCARB.COM/BLOG

PLEASE UPDATE YOUR BOOKMARKS TO LIVINLAVIDALOWCARB.COM/BLOG

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Kimkins Diet Opposition Needs A Dose Of Reality

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: , , , , , , , , ,

25 Comments:

Blogger CB said...

Jimmy,

Hey, good for you for standing up for choices that only you have the right to make!

Personally, I don't have enough information to make a fully informed decision about kimkins; but based on what I could find (and I think I did due diligence in trying to find out), I don't see much scientific support for kimkins.

Perhaps I'm wrong? I don't know; I couldn't find any specifics for the forms/phases/whatever of kimkins (that information appeared to require joining/paying in order to obtain).

Thus, from the outside, kimkins *appears* to be arbitrarily low-fat/low-calorie. I argue against LF/LC approaches to weight loss for two reasons: 1) the low-carb approach involves a paradigm shift with respect to metabolism, physiology, and weight loss, such that the LF/LC "rules" do not apply; and 2) LF/LC approaches generally are not sustainable long-term.

If you have links to information about kimkins, that would disprove my assumptions that it is LF/LC, I would love to read it. If I could gain some confidence that kimkins is scientifically/nutritionally sound, I would love to add its principles as another "arrow in the quiver." As it is right now, though, I can only base my opinion on what information I have been able to find.

I know nothing about Kimmer, and I think ad hominem attacks and wacko-conspiracy theories have no place in civil discourse (especially among fellow, low-carb adherents).

6/19/2007 1:29 PM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

Hey CB,

THANKS for your comments. The best I can tell you is the version of Kimkins I am on lets me eat unlimited portions of lean protein sources with very little carbohydrate so you are burning stored fat quickly and efficiently. There are NO calorie restrictions on K/E whatsoever.

While some of the other plans can limit your calories to a certain level, NONE of them go as low as 400-500 as the haters are claiming. It's just more hyperbole from those who choose to remain ignorant about this diet.

As for scientific support, the low-carb lifestyle is seeing a huge boom in studies looking at how much protein and fat should be combined with a low-carb approach. I think this is the next big area of interest from the low-carb research standpoint.

I'm not as convinced as others that a low-fat, low-carb approach is necessarily the BEST way to eat, but maybe a little less fat could cut down on calories enough to produce weight loss. That seems to be what's happening for me right now and I'm not planning on changing.

If you have any specific questions about Kimkins, I know Kimmer is happy to answer your concerns anytime at webmaster@kimkins.com.

Believe me, I had the questions, too. But now I'm a believer because the results have been sensational. THANKS as always for your perspective, CB!

6/19/2007 2:00 PM  
Blogger CB said...

Thanks for the reply, Jimmy.

I've been trying to do some more research online. I found a couple very interesting articles:

Why Low-Carb Diets Must Be High-Fat

Diabetics Improve Health With Very High-Fat, Low Carb Diet

(I was looking for information regarding dietary fat intake and blood lipid profiles in a low-carb diet. I would HIGHLY recommend reading Dr. Michael Eades' blog post on carb intake, the leptin cycle, and appetite. It is a great reminder of why low carb/high fat is a natural appetite suppressant and naturally results in lower caloric intake.)

I agree that the determination of the ideal ratio of protein and fat in a low-carb diet is a crucial point of discussion. I have actually always told anyone who would listen that low-carb diets (Atkins particularly) are actually *high fat*, NOT high protein, diets.

Thanks for the suggestion; I would love to email kimkins, and see what response I will get!

6/19/2007 2:39 PM  
Blogger The Bunnell Farm said...

One thing for sure here is that you have stirred up a hornets nest. That's not a bad thing, that's a good thing. The more debate we have(heated or otherwise)the better. When something as pronounced as our views regarding our governments food pyramid and our medical community is in the forefront of the debate you know for sure something important is happening. If we were livestock or animals in a zoo we would definitely get to the bottom of this.(point being that if these animals were dieing and going crazy we would have to get to the bottom of and find and cure the problem). It's totally pertinent to our health. It doesn't matter what the governments view on this is or what Jimmy Moore or Kimkins or Tom Bunnell or anybody else thinks or feels about this. What matters is what is good and right for our overall health and for those of us that are overweight, our overall weight loss in addition to what is a healthy diet to live on as well as lose weight on. Our lives are at stake here as well as the lives of our children. You can be sure that each of us, as well all as our government have pulled out all the stops in this and we are seriously dealing with this issue. I'll say it again, if we were livestock or animals in a zoo we would be able to get to the bottom of this. We would have to get to the bottom of this because our very lives are at stake as well as the lives of our children and grandchildren. Extreme measures, short term in an emergency or semi emergency situation, is sometimes a necessity. How be it, not our first choice. So were talking about life and living and our overall health, not just for us but every living creature there is, be they caged or free. Keep up the good work Jimmy, you are very much in the forefront in this debate. I admire your courage. Individually[and]together we will all gain from these experiences.

6/19/2007 2:47 PM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

CB, I'm aware that higher fat diets as a percentage of total calorie intake care advantageous for health reasons. I've even blogged about them before many times here at my blog.

But even respected low-carb practitioner Dr. Mary C. Vernon has said that people on the Atkins diet don't actually eat any MORE fat than they were, but that the percentage of the fat intake changed when the carbohydrate was greatly reduced.

It makes sense and is something I am cognizant of with my Kimkins plan. Individualism is important as it relates to diet and I'm a big believer in people finding what works for them.

You're right, too, Tom. We need to engage the debate constantly so people can discover for themselves what is right.

6/19/2007 2:54 PM  
Blogger CB said...

Jimmy,

You're absolutely correct about individualism; please don't take any of my comments to imply otherwise.

Again, I'll withhold any "judgement" (perhaps "evaluation" is a more apropos term?) of kimkins until I've had a chance to converse with Kimmer; however, at first glance, Kimkins appears to be a conglomeration of "new" (low-carb) thinking and "old" (low-fat, saturated-fat-is-evil, etc.) thinking. (See Thinking About Kimkins?)

The other thing that gives me pause is the "no exercise required" promoted by Kimkins ("No exercise! No kidding!"). I know of NO scientific basis for lack of exercise benefiting weight loss, regardless of weight-loss method.

(Quite to the contrary. All evidence, to my knowledge, points not only to the weight-loss benefits of exercise, but also the all-around wellness benefits.)

In the end, if it helps you accomplish your goals, and if it is healthful, then I wish you all the success possible.

Kimkins - even if I end up disagreeing with certain aspects of the approach - is certainly better than anything Dean Ornish has ever proposed. And right now, anything that promotes the advantages of a primarily low-carb based dietary intake is a positive thing.

6/19/2007 4:00 PM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

No offense taken to what you have stated, CB. I respect where you are coming from because you are raising the bar of public discourse with the manner in which you are discussing this topic (unlike the people I blogged about in this post).

Again, I'm not a proponent of EVERYTHING Kimkins stands for just as I wasn't about Atkins when I first started it either. Again, it goes back to customizing what's right for you.

I enjoy a little more fat than Kimmer would prefer, but that's okay because it's working for me. The same goes for exercise. If you wanna do it, then great. I ABSOLUTELY do because it makes me feel better.

Your final paragraph nails it. Regardless of the low-carb plan you choose, it's a much better option than the Ornish low-fat diet will EVER be! AMEN!

6/19/2007 4:34 PM  
Blogger Gary J said...

This sort of nonsense has been going on for decades. Of professionals and nonprofessionals, doctors and lay people, nutritionists and others - someone comes out with a diet that works.

Then all the others pile on. And while criticizing individuals for their lack of control and society for its bad eating habits, they eschew the plans that actually make it possible for some people to succeed where they have always otherwise failed.

It's as if it's cheating not to do it the "conventional-wisdom", cookie-cutter, low-calorie, low-fat way. Oh my, not nutritionally balanced, doesn't form good eating habits for the long run, contains eggs (horrors!), meats, and or real butter, blah blah blah.

A message to those people from me: Please just shut up - live and let live. If some poor recidivist finally finds something that works after years of failure and desperation, and you don't approve of it because it's not "health religion", please, just shut up.

6/19/2007 4:46 PM  
Blogger CB said...

While I'm waiting for a response from Kimmer, I thought I would mention something about her approach that I think is very positive: sugar alcohols are counted equally with all other carbs (fiber, too; though I have less of a problem with discounting insoluble fiber).

I think the proliferation of use of sugar alcohols and other sugar "substitutes" undermines some of the more fundamental principles of the low-carb approach - not to mention, undermines many well-intentioned low-carb weight-loss attempts.

So, props to Kimkins for not discounting them from the daily carb-intake count!

6/19/2007 4:50 PM  
Blogger AnOldHouse said...

"Kimkins Diet Haters Need a Dose Of Reality"

LOL And I suppose that "reality" costs exactly $59.95? LOL!!!!!!

What more reality does anyone need to know other than that among the 5 defined plans:

3 of them are clearly defined as ultra-low calorie/LOW-FAT/starvation diets at 500, 800 and 1,000 calories

that the other 2 are in practical terms also low-cal/low-fat/starvation diets (sub-basal)

that 4 versions have absolutely -ZERO- requirement for any exercise (a big selling point)

and that ALL versions are profoundly nutritionally unsound?

So...what "reality" am I missing that $59.95 is going to buy me? LOL

A Kimkins "Hater",
David

6/19/2007 6:05 PM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

Um, David, your hyperbolic description of the Kimkins plans notwithstanding, you have still yet to explain how the version of Kimkins I am doing which is NOT restrictive on calories could be described as a "starvation" diet.

I eat as MUCH as I want to take away my hunger just as I did on Atkins. Why the shock and horror over this with Kimkins?

I respect your opinion and think you are a great guy personally after meeting you a couple of years ago, but I think you have taken this crusade against Kimmer and Kimkins just a wee bit to the extreme. It's not as bad as you are portraying it.

6/19/2007 9:06 PM  
Blogger AnOldHouse said...

"Um, David, your hyperbolic description of the Kimkins plans notwithstanding, you have still yet to explain how the version of Kimkins I am doing which is NOT restrictive on calories could be described as a "starvation" diet.

I eat as MUCH as I want to take away my hunger just as I did on Atkins. Why the shock and horror over this with Kimkins?


Jimmy, exactly what is "hyperbolic" about anything I've said about Kimkins? Is there anything at all non-factual about Kimkins that I've stated thus far? (Yes, I was incorrect about your prior use of ketosis when I thought you said you had not, and I've already made it clear that I was wrong and that I stand corrected on that point.) You've taken me to task, absolutely insisting that absolutely no version of Kimkins is under 1200 kcal per day (which is only just above HALF of your basal metabolic rate, by my estimation), and multiple others who are paying customers of Kimkins have directly contradicted you on that point. So, yes, apparently the K/E version does not have a stated caloric maximum. Hereby acknowledged.

However, I, as well as several others, have asked what exactly, quantitatively you are eating. The only real answer you've give is for someone who is a Kimkins member to check your posts on the Kimkins site. Previously on your 30-in-30 site, you've posted many detailed daily menus, including quantity. Why so secretive now about such details with those outside of the Kimkins inner circle?

As I've clearly pointed out, unless you are eating the equivalent of 2.5 POUNDS of chicken AND 6 eggs a day, you are indeed doing a sub-basal/starvation diet even if the plan doesn't specifically give you a maximum calorie count.

I made this very mistake myself when I was first doing Atkins. The appetite suppression of ketosis was so significant, that I found myself consistently coming up with about 1,800 kcal per day. I also seriously stalled out after a few months of that. Thankfully, Regina Wilshire pointed out to me that I was eating significantly sub-basal (my basal was about 2,300 at the time). So, I upped my daily caloric intake by about 500-600 kcal per day on her advice even though I was very worried that it would cause a weight gain. But Regina, as always, was right on the mark...I didn't gain anything. It took a couple months to work back out of metabolic starvation mode--exactly as long as it took to get myself into it--and suddenly I began losing again.

Thankfully, I caught it in time and did not experience the kind of wieght rebound that I am all too personally familiar with from doing low-cal/low-fat/low-everything (a la Kimkins) three times.

So, unless you are clearly telling me straight out that you are eating *at least* the caloric equivelent (+/-2,200 kcal per day) of my example of 2.5 POUNDS of chicken PLUS 6 eggs a day or MORE, then it is entirely clear to me that with the appetite suppression you are experiencing from being in "real ketosis"* you are eating a sub-basal/starvation diet.

It's already been well established that eating only lean meats and eggs is entirely nutritionally unsound.

Look, I fully understand that there is no one set dietary plan (I'm talking macronutrient mix here) that fits everyone. Some people do better with a little more protein, some do better with a few more quality carbohydrates. That's NOT what I'm talking about here. I also know full well, that there are absolute essential nutritional requirements that simply cannot be fulfilled eating a sub-basal caloric diet (500, 800, 1,000 or even 1,200 daily) or one that consists of only lean meats and eggs.

-David

*the term "real ketosis" is complete bunk. Either you are in ketosis and derive the benefits thereof, or you're not. There is no benefit (greater appetite suppression, etc.) from being "deeper" in ketosis.

Which reminds me...exactly what qualifications as a medical, scientific and/or nutritional professional does 'Kimmer' have anyway?

6/19/2007 11:33 PM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

It's no secret what I'm doing on the version of Kimkins I am on--as much lean protein as I want to satisfy my hunger. That's it. This isn't rocket science and it's gonna get me to my weight loss goal in very short order. Then I'll ease into Atkins maintenance and hopefully stay at my goal weight for the rest of my life.

Again, I appreciate your comments even if I do strongly disagree with much of your continued hyperbole.

6/19/2007 11:42 PM  
Blogger AnOldHouse said...

"While I'm waiting for a response from Kimmer, I thought I would mention something about her approach that I think is very positive: sugar alcohols are counted equally with all other carbs (fiber, too; though I have less of a problem with discounting insoluble fiber).

I think the proliferation of use of sugar alcohols and other sugar "substitutes" undermines some of the more fundamental principles of the low-carb approach - not to mention, undermines many well-intentioned low-carb weight-loss attempts."


"Old school" Atkins enthusiasts like me, never discount sugar alcohols. That was one of a small handful of serious flaws that Dr. Atkins allowed into his plan in order to support his then-rapidly growing low-carb junk food business. Okay, so they are lower calorically than sugar (but not at all calorie-free) and tend to have a lower impact on blood sugars...super duper (they still have a dramatic effect on insulin levels). Ggreen leafy veggies also have a lower impact on blood sugars (and correspondingly appropriately low impact on insulin), but we have to count the carbs in those!!! Does that really make any sense?

The deduction for fiber is on a square scientific footing. Unlike sugar alcohols (as well as glycerine), fiber is non-caloric and has zero effect on blood sugar and insulin levels.

-David

6/19/2007 11:44 PM  
Blogger Kevin said...

David, it is good that you finally explained what happened to you here and the Regina Wilshire connection. I did not understand until now what you were talking about regarding this "basal metabolic rate". This is the first I have heard that eating more will actually produce more weight loss, a possibly crucial point. How much more did you lose after increasing calories and for how long?

I am not necessarily convinced that this method works the same for all people. If people are having more success on Kimkins than Atkins, then doesn't that mean they are doing something better? If they have tried Atkins, and Kimkins works better, then clearly they should do Kimkins. I do not necessarily believe that there are "unhealthy" ways to lose weight. For the morbidly obese, if you have tried everything else, and nothing else works, then you had better do whatever does work.

I think you may be going too far with the generalization that certain foods are "entirely nutitionally unsound" just because you miss a few vitamins and minerals in them. Isn't that what supplements are for, which Dr. Atkins always encouraged? I do not believe that supplements are necessarily less healthy than food. People through history have reduced their food intake, or "fasted", and reported increased energy, mental clarity, and even mystical insight, so maybe "starvation" is really not the bogeyman you presume it to be.

In general, I agree that we are trying to escape Ornish and approach Atkins, and that we don't want to confuse and disrupt the low-carb message. It bears repeating that low-carb is a brave new world of inquiry, and none of us really knows yet how it works badly, works better, or works best. Scientists, as usual, are the very last to know the truth, and are often contradicted by common sense and real experience. In this age of unaccountable, politicized, ideologized bearacracies, we need to stop trusting what "they" all tell us. The blind trust of the masses in doctors is just as much a "cult" as any other inappropriate form of worship.

If low-carb has taught us anything, it is that one million doctors CAN be wrong. One million doctors and researchers trained under one gravely misguided medical bearacracy has only produced one million gravely misguided doctors, all trying to protect their prestige and incomes at the expense of their patients' health. Shame on them all.

No, Kimmer is not a doctor or a medical anything, and yes, her diet is just common-sense guesswork. Yes, she is attracting the usual new-diet mob mentality/lemming response, which will taper off, but we don't really know when or how far it will go, maybe not before it has profound effects. Maybe it will finally help popularize low-carb. Maybe it will change the world. If it works better for people, then what harm? I say, prove or demonstrate any real harm and balance it with the real, perhaps profound, benefit. And take a multivitamin. And get some exercise.

But you raise some possibly valid points of concern and further inquiry.

6/20/2007 4:15 AM  
Blogger mrfritznyc said...

I'd just like to question some points your Kimkin's critics have been harping on, if you don't mind?

where is the proof that sub-basal diets are harmful? I went round and round with ReginaW on this topic on the active low carber forum-all I heard sounded like guesswork, not particularly convincing guesswork at that.

where is the proof that exercise is required? exercise, in fact, is NOT required for weight loss. Cardio exercise, in fact, has been shown to be pretty much useless as a weight loss tool. You only burn a small number of calories, which you easily replace due to increased hunger.

at any rate, the kimkins forum has a large and active section on exercise, moderated by a certified trainer, so exercise is certainly a part of the program. It's just not a necessary part, IMHO, and in Kimkin's opinion as well, apparently.

6/20/2007 8:16 AM  
Blogger The Bunnell Farm said...

The Mayo Clinic in 1998 recommended that I take a one a day vitamin each night before bed during my weight loss which was to be a 3000 calorie diet that included counseling for my compulsive eating disorder. This, along with exercise was deemed to be the appropriate response to my morbid obesity. With something like a 53 body mass index and close to 200# overweight. The first 50 pounds of weight loss they said I could eat as little as I wanted too. The assumption was that this amount(50#) would come off fairly easily and fairly quickly and that the drain on my body would be limited and thereby safe. After the initial 50# I was to try to maintain from 2500 calories to 3000 calories a day, along with the counseling and exercise and my one a day vitamin at night my for long term weight loss and overall health while doing so. They also put me on the prescription counterpart of Alli. I stopped taking the Alli right away because of it's restrictions and side effects. I never went to counseling. I did take the vitamin for a little while but not long. I never exercised and I immediately began to eat more than 3000 calories and I never lost any weight. I probably gained some over the next several years. Total failure. Mostly my fault. I couldn't muster it and barely tried. I did think about the Psych for counseling but the idea of surface or in depth analysis turned me off. I knew I had a compulsive eating disorder and that I was indulging this to pacify myself but counseling I felt wouldn't solve the problem for me because I had already dealt with psychology and counseling in the past and psychiatry for unrelated matters. Talk therapy works for some and pharmaceuticals work for some but I came to the conclusion that they messed more people up than they helped. I definitely didn't want any pharmaceuticals. So I shy-ed away from counseling. The one thing I did get from all of this was that I needed to lose weight in order to improve my health. If I didn't my chances of getting diabetes and heart disease and cancer and a host of other conditions and diseases was pretty high if not alarmingly high. The other thing I got was that with a huge surplus of fat like I had that I could do about anything in the way of dieting and taking off the first 50# and after that if I wanted to lose the weight safely and healthfully and not take a chance of killing myself by crash dieting that I should do my diet in the range of 2500 calories a day. Otherwise I was playing Russian Roulette. Morbid obesity and extreme weight loss are not games that can be played with. Our adrenaline will kick in just like Ketosis and carry us as long and as far it can but if we overdo it we may disable or kill ourselves. My recommendation is to not overdo it, which can easily be done, especially with our new found zest for life after joining the living after being fat for so long a time. Additionally I believe that rationalizing that supplements and vitamines make everything safe that we do is misnomer.

6/20/2007 11:10 AM  
Blogger The Bunnell Farm said...

I'm thinking that some pounds of meat and fat a day along with water could be just fine for some amount of time. The supplements and sweeteners and stimulants have me concerned at this point though because there is little to absorb and counteract what could possibly be harmful effects of these non-food and non-water items.

6/20/2007 12:22 PM  
Blogger CB said...

Jimmy,

Kimmer replied to my email, and basically pointed me to google to find the freely available information on Kimkins.

More searching led me to the LCF message board, where I am finding the most information available thus far.

It appears to me that on the LCF forums, Kimkins is promoted as a low cal/low fat (LC/LF) low-carb WOE.

Without getting into the merits of LC/LF here, I will say that I am finding quite a bit of nutritional/physiological misinformation (e.g. the physiology of ketosis and metabolic advantage, the metabolic hierarchy, the difference between fasting and starvation metabolism, etc.).

(Please note, that statement is not intended to address the efficacy of Kimkins. Obviously, Kimkins works for many people. I don't intend, at this point, to get into the efficacy of Kimkins; rather, I truly want to understand the principles of Kimkins: *why* it works.)

I don't want to take up your comment space with any kind of in-depth analysis, so I will put something together on my own blog, and link back here.

6/20/2007 7:31 PM  
Blogger AnOldHouse said...

David, it is good that you finally explained what happened to you here and the Regina Wilshire connection. I did not understand until now what you were talking about regarding this "basal metabolic rate". This is the first I have heard that eating more will actually produce more weight loss, a possibly crucial point. How much more did you lose after increasing calories and for how long?"

Sorry for the confusion, this debate is now spread across 3 different posts on two different blogs so it's difficult to know who knows what without duplicating comments across multiple posts which I don't intend to do.

I initially lost about 50 pounds in late 2003 doing Atkins, but a sub-basal Atkins at an average of about 1,800 kcal per day where my BMR was about 2,300 (or initially even higher) back then. So I lost that weight over about 6 months and then stalled out for about 3. Regina pointed out that I was signigicantly sub-basal and that it was probably why I wasn't seeing any new territory at that point. So, I upped my caloric intake by adding about equal parts of protein and fat to consistently meet basal and didn't gain a pound doing so (which I was very worried about). About 3 months later my weight started to move downward again, albeit, quite slowly. I didn't care how slow it was, I never set a timeframe for weightloss, I think that's a very foolish thing to do. After a few months and losing about an additional 15 pounds, I decided to go into Atkins Maintenance. Having multiple prior failed long-term weightloss experiences, I was very concerned that I couldn't maintain, even doing low-carb this time instead of low-fat/low-cal. Well, I learned that I could indeed maintain very nicely this way. In fact, I got a bit too comfortable and maintained longer than I had initially intended, about 2 years. In late August last year, I took up Jimmy's 30-in-30 challenge utilizing Regina's omega balancing recommendations (including grass-fed beef and raw organic cheeses) and some supplement tweaks, and I've managed to lose another 20 pounds since.

"I am not necessarily convinced that this method works the same for all people. If people are having more success on Kimkins than Atkins, then doesn't that mean they are doing something better? If they have tried Atkins, and Kimkins works better, then clearly they should do Kimkins."

Depends entirely on how you measure "success." I don't happen to consider more rapid weightloss to be anything close to "success." I measure success by how many years someone has maintained a wieghtloss. So how many (as in a percentage of those who've started) have mananged to lose weight and keep it off for a year, three years, five years?

"I do not necessarily believe that there are "unhealthy" ways to lose weight. For the morbidly obese, if you have tried everything else, and nothing else works, then you had better do whatever does work."

Oh, I can think of several: diet pills, laxatives, diuretics, nutritionally incomplete dieting, low-calorie/starvation diets (500-1,000 kcal), abuse of fasting, anorexia, bulemia, low-fat, veganism...

"I think you may be going too far with the generalization that certain foods are "entirely nutitionally unsound" just because you miss a few vitamins and minerals in them. Isn't that what supplements are for, which Dr. Atkins always encouraged? I do not believe that supplements are necessarily less healthy than food."

I didn't say that lean meats and eggs were at all unhealthy foods...certainly quite the contrary. But a diet of exclusively lean meat and eggs is decidedly nutritionally unsound. Supplements should be an insurance policy. You shouldn't have to rely on them to get your nutrition. Also, many popular (cheap) supplements are produced from petroleum and are garbage. Even with top quality supplements, it's always better to get your nutrients from real food.

"People through history have reduced their food intake, or "fasted", and reported increased energy, mental clarity, and even mystical insight, so maybe "starvation" is really not the bogeyman you presume it to be."

Short-term use of fasting (a day or two at a time) isn't going to hurt most anyone. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about prolonged sub-basal caloric deficits. I am well aware that experts such as Dr. Michael Eades has discussed "caloric restriction." He was talking about restricting calories to about 90-95% of overall active caloric requirements, not eating at sub-basal rates indefinitely. And likewise with the "intermittent fasting." It is designed to slightly reduce overall caloric intake from what your total active caloric requirement is, not starve yourself at somewhere less than half of your basal caloric requirements.

-David

6/20/2007 10:37 PM  
Blogger Sue said...

Just wanted to say that when I read the comments about kimkins I don't get the feeling that people are jealous that Jimmy is having success on kimkins. What I got was that a lot of people were upset that he was saying that the plans are not extremely low-calorie. As a member of kimkins I know that the calories are extremely low - some as low as 300/400. Jimmy is not going low but a lot of the women do. That's what caused the whole commotion.

6/21/2007 3:48 AM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

Sue, you are probably partially right, but don't think people aren't also upset that I'm eating the lower-fat Kimkins low-carb diet now.

I'm of the opinion that people should tweak their low-carb diet to their individualized needs--some able to eat a few more carbs and fat, others who need a few less carbs and fat.

Concerns over the number of calories that I am eating is indeed a point of contention. Despite the fact that I've said my Kimkins plan is not calorie-restricted, I still have people questioning my calorie intake.

That's the crux of this debate.

6/21/2007 9:15 AM  
Blogger wallflowernomore said...

Has anyone in the debate noticed that the 500-700 calories is not a REQUIREMENT, simply the norm? I've done Atkins and Kimkins and can tell you that unless you have experienced the true loss of appetite and freedom found in Kimkins, you will never accept that it could be okay. Under ordinary circumstances, 500 cal would feel like starving yourself; with Kimkins it does not. I've never felt better - even on Atkins.
BTW, my daughter has lost over 100 pounds on Kimkins, which is a heck of a lot healthier than the alternatives of obesity or gastric bypass, IMHO.

6/22/2007 2:16 AM  
Blogger Jeff Hamlin said...

Calorie counting = prison. Enough said!

6/23/2007 1:41 PM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

That's why I don't count calories on my Kimkins plan, Jeff.

6/23/2007 1:42 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home