Monday, November 12, 2007

Kimkins Diet Scam Shared On FOX's 'The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet'

For anyone who still buys into the weight loss scam known as the Kimkins diet, today had to be a really bad day for you. As I previously blogged, this low-fat, low-calorie starvation diet scheme had a pretty rough day today. While the perpetrator of this diet fraud was sitting in a Corona, California courtroom with her attorney facing civil charges of misconduct alleged in a class action lawsuit, her public relations spokeswoman was hemming and hawing her way through an embarrassing performance on the national FOX program called "The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet."

That would be Jeannie Baitinger, aka TippyToes, who actually dropped some pretty big bombshells on the show today, including confirming that the creator of the Kimkins diet Kimmer is in fact Heidi Diaz (just revealed during a phone conversation a few days ago to Jeannie and in this post today on the Kimkins web site, although it has been well-known for over a year), that she is indeed 300 pounds again, that the Kimkins diet is an ever-evolving plan, and that no doctor is currently endorsing the diet publicly (although she claimed that a "bariatric specialist" would be making a decision about joining up with Kimkins following the show). You could tell a lot of CYA was happening today and the hosts weren't buying into it.

The following is the entire appearance by former Kimkins dieters Christin Sherburne and Deni Huttala, both of whom did a fabulous job of talking about the dangers of the Kimkins diet. There was also a nutritionist (that Jeannie kept calling a "nutritionalist") and an internist on the show who made some pretty damning points against this awful diet (although the doctor got in a rather misleading comment about ketosis that was 100% WRONG!). Nevertheless, the overall result of the show was extremely positive for those of us who have been warning about this diet.

Watch these four segments NOW:

Go leave comments and rate the video segments at YouTube for each of these so we can help spread the word to other uninformed potential Kimkins dieters. Here are the links: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

1-31-08 UPDATE: Get the lowdown on all the latest happenings with the Kimkins diet scam by clicking here.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,


Blogger Lori said...

Quote from our Fabulous Jimmy: "You could tell a lot of CYA was happening today..."

LOL, now THAT was funny! And oh so correctamundo. :-)

11/12/2007 10:48 PM  
Blogger size8jeans said...

Thanks for the heads-up on this. I set my VCR and watched the show when I got up.

YES, I noticed the ketosis comment by the doctor! How can he says such a thing? Is he really so stupid that he's confusing it with ketoacidosis?! Sheesh!

Christin came off great on the show - very articulate. The PR lady did her best, but I loved the e-mail she accidentally sent to the show producers about being afraid of the dietitian! Classic!

11/12/2007 11:12 PM  
Blogger blog nerd said...

Thanks for posting this, Jimmy.

This is certainly an INTERESTING moment in the history of American dieting.

I think it is clear that the fraud involved here is both heinous and illegal. She will be convicted of those crimes.

But as this show makes absolutely CRYSTAL, the so called "experts" are even more bogus than Kimmer herself.

Extended use of calories that drop below 700 is probably not a good idea (and may not even be necessary) but as Dr. Eades is fond of pointing out, those in Auschwitz underwent a couple of YEARS of these conditions and eventually regained their health.

It is PROBABLY not a good idea. BUT WE DON'T KNOW! That's the whole point of Taubes' book. He doesn't even say the evidence is there that low carb is better (though it is pretty clear which way he leans) he says--hey there is this whole other nutritional THEORY out there (its just THEORY) that we really haven't given a good shot because of low fat fever. Let's stop letting religious-style conviction prevent us from looking at the facts.

Like ALL things nutritional--and btw, the so-called "nutritionalist" an internist come out looking the worst, she is shrill and over emotional and neither of them make any valid nutritional points.

My concern here is that in your zeal to prosecute Heidi Diaz you are unwittingly promoting the same kind of nutritional ignorance that has allowed low carbohydrate eating to remain the biggest health secret in America.

As far as being a "registered dietitian" or "nutritionist" they are only just NOW merely starting to re-examine the ridiculous food pyramid recommending 6-11 servings of grain. An RD really has no weight with me at all. If anything if an RD is talking, I immediately DON'T LISTEN.

An RD quite literally means the person has been indoctrinated with pseudo-science.

Certified Diabetes Nutritionists are STILL recommending that type II diabetics include whole grains and carbs in their diet which should be malpractice for goodness sake. The very definition of type II is carb poisoning or carb intolerance.

This anti-Kimkins rhetoric has a religous zeal to it that is the same breed of irrational response to Atkins--so wonderfully illustrated by this antiquated doctor who doesn't know the difference between ketoacidosis and ketosis.

There is not one valid medical point made in these videos and not one shred of decent information.

Where are the facts?

Kimmer committed fraud. Her diet? It's Stillman and Atkins '72 Come on people. This diet is nothing new. She didn't invent it.

A lot of chicks on the board were being excessive with caloric monitoring and fat-phobia and she encouraged it, sadly. They didn't go to a doctor and relied on email?

But the idea of the diet is really old news and has not been proven to be dangerous.

If anything, the video you posted didn't really show the diet itself up--it revealed the same kind of anti-Atkins hysteria all of us are dead set against.

Why promote a "news" segement that paints Kimkins and low-carb approaches with the same idiotic brush?

11/13/2007 9:42 AM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

I hear you blog nerd, but there was merit in this show if it keeps even ONE person from joining this diet scheme. That was the point of posting the video.

Yes, the internist displayed gross ignorance with his description of ketosis (confusing it with ketoacidosis), but the comments made about very low-calorie diets by both him and the nutritionist were DEAD ON.

For that reason, it was worth posting this video.

11/13/2007 9:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I actually thought that Ms. Bettinger held her own very well considering the mess Heidi has handed her. If anything, both the doctor and the registered dietitian came across as raving lunatics. Besides that, even Christin and Deni admitted that they both lost weight exactly as the plan claims.

So what we really get out of this, is Heidi Diaz lied about her weight, but the Kimkins DIET really does work as advertised, although you should do it under a doctor's supervision.

11/13/2007 1:26 PM  
Blogger Kimmerexia said...

bsenka sez: "Besides that, even Christin and Deni admitted that they both lost weight exactly as the plan claims."

Yes, Kimkins "works." (Duh!)

No one has ever claimed Kimkins doesn't "work." Why? Because STARVATION WORKS.

Jeannie Baitinger (Tippy Toes) was a complete moron to ever go on that show...a show about DIET SCAMS! Talk about PR suicide!!!

11/13/2007 3:07 PM  
Blogger Kimmerexia said...

bsenka sez: "the registered dietitian came across as raving lunatics."

Um, ya mean the nutritionAList? ROFLMAO!!!

11/13/2007 3:20 PM  
Blogger size8jeans said...


>Kimmer committed fraud. Her diet? It's Stillman and Atkins '72<

Have you read Atkins '72? I have, and it's NOT Kimkins by a long shot. Sure, Dr. Atkins didn't have an understanding of fiber then (no one did), but Dr. Atkins didn't recommend laxative abuse and didn't put rediculous calorie limits on the diet. He also promoted fat a lot more than Kimkins.

11/13/2007 10:20 PM  
Blogger size8jeans said...

The sad part about the doctor and RD is most people will believe them. Just because we stay up to date on this stuff doesn't mean everybody does and most people believe that doctors and RDs know everything about nutrition and health and will believe what they said on national TV.

We see them as lunitics because we know the truth. Most people don't.

11/13/2007 10:23 PM  
Blogger blog nerd said...

size 8---Um,yes, I have read Atkins and Stillman. Have YOU?

There was only one version of Kimkins that put calorie limits, a "boot camp plan". Like most low carb plans it actually makes a big deal out of not needing to count calories in its texts.

It was actually individual dieters(like Deni and Christin) and apparently Kimmer on the boards and through emails, who promoted "ridiculous calorie limits" by setting themselves up as examples. You should actually read the literature they put out on the web.

Atkins promoted even lower calorie plans than Boot Camp for the weigh loss resistant. Even his "revised" plans have that option. You should read it.

Stillman and Atkins didn't prescribe calorie limits per se but acknowledged that the natural appetite suppressant action of their diets would automatically reduce calories drastically. I think at one point Stillman suggests that calories will be between about 420-800, naturally.

Stillman, Atkins, and Kimkins (with the exception of Atkins and Kimkins style boot camps) are all de facto not de jure low calorie plans.

The only story on this diet is that Heidi Diaz used fraud and gave bad advice to women who were not seeking doctor's counsel. Reprehensible (Diaz) and foolish (her "victims").

I really think everyone needs to stop moralizing on diets.

Very low calorie diets have always been and will always remain a controversial option for the extremely obese.

It may not be the plan you choose but it is this religious like conviction about nutritional hypotheses that got us to the low fat craze, too.

A lot of people are so completely CERTAIN about things that no one can say ANYTHING about with certainty.

Even low carb eating is just a hypothesis. As Taubes' book so clearly points out the studies on nutrition, diet, and obesity just aren't there.

You can all sit around and agree with each other or you can critically examine the facts.

The facts are is that the Kimkins diet didn't prescribe official calorie limits with the exception of the Boot Camp option--the main plan is a version of Stillman and Atkins '72.

And even Atkins new diet revolution recommends a boot camp style low calorie plan--albeit comprised mostly of fat.

You may not LIKE plans that are very low calorie and with (perhaps) good reason, but you do not have conclusive proof that a low calorie/low carb plan is harmful anymore than Dean Ornish has conclusive proof that a regular low carb plan is harmful.

Don't fall pray to religious thinking about things we can only make best guess hypotheses about.

This is the very error in rational thinking that brought low fat fever to the fever pitch it arrived at.

There's nothing new under the sun and most obese people will survive all manner of diets with very little long term damage to their health.

11/14/2007 5:43 AM  
Blogger Kate Welch said...

I tend to agree with the skeptics here.

Thank you for posting the shows Jimmy. I was able to watch the whole thing.

Sure, TippyToes looked a bit of a fool with the email and the "nutritionalist" thing, and the fact that Kimmer is a scam artist was made clear. you really think it did more damage than good? To me, it looked like a decent amount of publicity for Kimkins, even if that publicity was not the greatest. You had repeated before and after shots of Christin, Deni, TT and SingingLass...and them sitting there looking, for the most part, fantastic. To me those pictures are powerful reminders that the diet works purely in terms of weight loss - and works quickly.

Now, you have people, desperate people to be sure, not listening to any of the scam stuff and just rushing to their computers to join this magic plan. There are already reports of this from inside the KK forums. Pictures stick with people more powerfully than words.

The nutritionist spoke so fast and all I remember about her was her indignation. The doctor, as has been pointed out, just went on about ketosis as if it were ketoacidosis, and basically gave low-carb in general a whole boatload of bad press. Nothing he said was specific to Kimkins.

All in all, I think the show gave Kimkins a chance to begin "remaking" itself with changes and a whole lot of new publicity. I wouldn't be surprised at another surge in membership, and from what I hear about the deposition, the website is safe and will not be taken down.

So, my question, how is this a victory for those against Kimkins?

11/14/2007 7:32 AM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

EXCELLENT comments, Kate! But I tend to disagree with you slightly. The hero of this show in my opinion was Christin. She's a real person who lost weight and looks fantastic. But you could hear the gasps in the audience when she said she went to see a cardiologist and other doctors for the health complications from taking in too few calories.

Although Dr. Siegal was not very flattering to ketosis, that JAMA study he cited was about LOW-CALORIE diets causing all those problems he noted. All I could think after hearing his comments along with the machine gun statements from the nutritionist was this diet is bad news.

But, as you noted, there are gullible people at every turn who would try cutting off a leg to lose weight if they hear about it on television. That's gonna happen, but it's not the norm. Most people are smart enough to see through this scam.

In fact, did you notice how Jeannie was almost BRAGGING about Heidi Diaz being in court for a class action lawsuit on Monday? That should make you RUN as fast as you can.

THANKS again for your feedback, Kate!

11/14/2007 9:45 AM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

Blog Nerd says:

Stillman, Atkins, and Kimkins (with the exception of Atkins and Kimkins style boot camps) are all de facto not de jure low calorie plans.

Atkins, low-calorie? Are you serious? When I was losing weight, my calorie intake was around 4000-5000 a day and today it's about 2500-3000. Doesn't sound too calorie restricted to me, eh? :)

11/14/2007 9:49 AM  
Blogger blog nerd said...

Jimmy you probably never read these sections of the two editions of his books because you have had great success (and good for you!) eating high calories and losing weight.

Some of us are not so lucky, my friend.

But Atkins very clearly addresses those who are weight loss resistant and suggests very, very low calorie approaches to get into on-going weight loss.

Your particular body chemistry is not what every person experiences on low carb dieting. Atkins saw enough patients to know that a significant portion of the population needs to watch calories and carbs.

He also suggests cutting out dairy if you are weight loss resistant.

If you look at his two books, the early edition and the current revised "new revolution" one, you'll see that I am correct.

My father was a disciple of Atkins in the 70s and he followed the book's advice which often including eating nothing but egg yolks and mayo for an extended period of time to get into on-going weight loss.

He also recommends this in the New Revolution.

It's there.

Kimkins recommends a much more extended period of time on this approach but it still is not out of the purview of our beloved Dr. A.

And Stillman--its almost a dead rip off from Stillman. I mean exactly.

11/14/2007 10:01 AM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

I read those AFTER I lost my weight, but you're right. My success didn't necessitate reading those since I was losing weight so well.

Although I can get away with eating more calories, my carbs have to stay REALLY low in order for me to lose and maintain my weight. Less than 50g daily and sometimes even below 30g is NECESSARY to control my weight.

11/14/2007 10:26 AM  
Blogger Vesna Vuynovich Kovach said...

Blog nerd, can you truthfully say you would have described a man as "shrill" for raising his voice and expressing his views forcefully? Let's say that dietician had been replaced by a male who had used all the same words, all the same inflection.

Later in the post, you described Kimkins members who suffered from following the diet as "chicks" and dismissed them as "stupid." Well, that fits with your other statement, anyway.

11/14/2007 9:35 PM  
Blogger blog nerd said...


I wonder if you'd have a different reaction to my using the word "chick" if you realized


But you got me on one thing.

Since I can't imagine that I'd be getting into a cat fight with a castrato at any point in the foreseeable future, I don't think I could TRUTHFULLY say that I'd use the word shirll to describe a man.
(You do know the definition of the word, right?)

And I do apologize if it appeared I was calling Deni and Christin stupid women because they are not. I thought the grammar was clear but I'll clarify. I think the action--not going to see your doctor while undertaking an extreme diet--is stupid as in not wise.

Writing Stupid full stop was just pithier.

I try not to name call so I apologize profusely if anyone thought I was calling these women stupid. They are decidedly not stupid.

11/16/2007 10:35 AM  
Blogger size8jeans said...

Yes blog nerd, I *have* read Atkins '72, and the New Diet Revolution. I have not read Stillman's and have no interest in that plan.

I believe Atkins '72 recommends eating until satiated, just as the newer version does. It doesn't recommend being naucious (sp).

>And even Atkins new diet revolution recommends a boot camp style low calorie plan--albeit comprised mostly of fat.<

I believe the Fat Fast was deleted from later editions of the book because people were abusing it. It is only supposed to be done for a few days, for people who are metabolically resistant to weight loss, and under a doctor's suppervision. Too many people used it as a quick weight loss plan, so I heard it was taken out.

11/19/2007 9:55 PM  
Blogger blog nerd said...

As this proves, folks have FUNNY reactions to diet. Moral outrage is one of the funnier ones.


You heard? Or you READ? hmm...that's the problem I think. I HEARD...its like a game of telephone.

My copy of the new diet revolution recommends low calories for the weight loss resistant. 'Sall 'm sayin' I don't know about what you heard. But I can talk about what we've READ.

Also Jimmy will tell you--neither of us have been able to find the medical journal article the doctor cited on very low calorie diets. I've read most of the research and have distilled the best data available. Most of the recent scholarship published states that very low calorie diets work without many negative side effects but they don't seem to have any long term efficacy.

So the real fools on Fox were the doctor and the dietician. But, hey, you can't get on the news if you shrug and say, "Ech, this diet probably sucks to be on but it's no big deal." You've got to scream fire in a crowded theater. THAT turns heads.

Here's the skinny Size 8: this version of low carb has always existed historically. Kimmer is just the latest person to be pushing it. It won't kill anyone and it will take off weight. You probably will have trouble in maintenance, though.

No one has ever demonstrated that it has long term side effects that outweigh the benefits of lowering triglycerides and burning off abdominal obesity.

It's okay that you don't like it and prefer Atkins, though.

I prefer to have higher calories even if I have slightly slower weight loss cuz, well, I LOVES ME SOME FOOD!

But there is no doubt cutting calories that I don't need out will speed it up. All the low carb doctors admit that.

Peace, out.

Thanks to our lovely host Mr. Moore.

Adieu, fellow chicks, Adieu!

11/20/2007 6:09 AM  
Blogger size8jeans said...

>You heard? Or you READ? hmm...that's the problem I think. I HEARD...its like a game of telephone.<

I never used the words "read" OR "heard." But you seem to enjoy misquoting people. Much easier to win a debate by breaking the rules...

Low calories is one thing. I *do* low calorie. But I do not do unsafe low calories. It's extemely rare for me to be under 1200 a day. The Fat Fast is not long term and it nothing like Kimkins. KK is protein with very little fat and long term; the Fast Fast is nearly all fat with very little protein and for only a few days. Night and day.

So you misquote and then leave. How lovely. Use an improper form of debate and then run.

11/20/2007 11:35 PM  
Blogger blog nerd said...


Read the last sentence of your comment, my friend. You write:

"Too many people used it as a quick weight loss plan, so I heard it was taken out."

That's a cut and paste. Point: you were saying you "heard" it was taken out. I was saying its better to discuss things that we read in print rather than things we "heard".

I'm sorry you are offended but there has been no improper debate form except for this latest exchange.

To summarize: My point has been that this diet and versions of it have been around for a long time. There is no sound and conclusive clinical evidence that it is dangerous when used to treat co-morbid obesity.

Your point is that you think it is dangerous. I get that. You are entitled to an opinion. An opinion that a lot will join you on.

However popular an opinion or an hypothesis is, it doesn't create evidence. There is no evidence that it is harmful. Anecdotal reports of the type we hear on the internet are not hard evidence.

And when you are dealing with co-morbid obesity and something works, I hesitate to call it dangerous when there has been no conclusive evidence that such an approach (which doctors have also used for a long time) causes any damage that outweighs being severely obese.

Can we agree to disagree and leave Mr. Moore's poor comment box alone without accusing the other one of poor form?

This is what we call an ad hominem attack--which is truly improper debate form.

So I'll wish you the best, congratulate you on your size 8s and let you have the last word.

Happy Thanksgiving. Sincerely.

Thanks again, Jimmy.

11/21/2007 3:21 PM  
Blogger size8jeans said...


Wow. You came back.

I don't have the most updated version of NDR. My copy is from 2002 and includes the Fat Fast. If you have a newer copy, please enlighten me if it has the FF or not.

It is to be done for 4-5 days, no longer. It has 1,000 calories. That sounds NOTHING like Kimkins. After 4-5 days, if someone wishes to continue, they are to add 200 more calories (1200 calories a day) and do that for a week. After that they should go to Induction. Atkins makes it clear that the FF is DANGEROUS unless you are truly metabolically resistant.

BTW, the place I "heard" the FF was taken out of later editions was the official Atkins forums on their Web site.

I don't see Atkins recommending low-calories in his old Diet Revolution book. Maybe it's there, but all I am finding is that 1500 calories and 10g carbs will help you lose faster than 2000 calories and 10g carbs. I don't see any recommendations for the typical 1200 calorie diet many plans today advocate.

I am not offended in the least, but you are dead wrong in equating Atkins '72 and the Fat Fast with Kimkins. They are night and day and I have pointed out the differences.

To reinterate on the Fat Fast:
"Low calories is one thing. I *do* low calorie. But I do not do unsafe low calories. It's extemely rare for me to be under 1200 a day. The Fat Fast is not long term and it nothing like Kimkins. KK is protein with very little fat and long term; the Fast Fast is nearly all fat with very little protein and for only a few days. Night and day."

Additionally, Atkins doesn't uphold SNATT as something good. Any carbs withdrawals should pass and you should feel BETTER than before the diet, not worse.

Seriously, how are either the least bit similar? There are more differences than similarities.

11/21/2007 6:47 PM  
Blogger blog nerd said...

I am trying to let you have the last word here. But you asked a question. :)

I concede that they are different--I never said they were exactly the same.

The principles behind the original Kimkins plan--not the boot camp or K/E plans--are taken directly from a combination of Stillman and Atkins '72. (It doesn't sound like you understand what the Kimkins plan is, exactly? Maybe you do, I don't know.)

My major point was that the type of diet is nothing new and that the hysteria about health risks is unwarranted.

The comparison to Fat Fast and '72 was to point out that low calorie is not a new idea in low carb dieting.

You are right that the Fat Fast and Kimkins are not the same thing.

Have a great holiday.

You can really have the last word.

I think we've both made our points.


11/21/2007 7:48 PM  
Blogger size8jeans said...

Low-calorie isn't new, no, but Kimkins took it to new lows. Ultra-low-calorie for an extended period IS new; at least Atkins doesn't preach it. I don't know if Stillman does or not. Even the Fat Fast has 1000 calories a day and Kinkins was often telling people to eat half that or less for long periods of time - weeks and months.

There really is no comparison. Most of what Atkins writes about in the first book is about eating until you are satisfied, with no calorie limit. Atkins '72 is a WHOLE lot healthier than Kimkins.

11/22/2007 6:39 PM  
Blogger Laura said...

Kimkins is not Atkins

11/30/2007 2:08 AM  
Anonymous Weight Loss said...

The modern obsession with a thin body is another problem that women face now a days. Women try everything in order to get this extra pounds off, things like pills, patches, diet, hunger, exercises and all kind of weight loss products. Some of them work, but others - not.

Weight loss industry is focusing on the way people should feel while doing it, in order to achieve better results and stay healthy all the time. Being healthy and thin is not a dream, it should be something, that is a reasonable and easy to be done.

9/18/2008 5:41 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home