KIMKINS DIET in Woman's World Mag.

[fluffybear]

The Kimkin's Diet (a derivative of the Atkin's Diet) is featured in this month's Woman's World magazine. However, I am still skeptical considering every photo she has ever posted of herself looks like a different woman. I realize people look different when they have lost a lost of weight, but I am talking about photos of her AFTER she lost weight. Even her eyes are a different color. Also she pays "affiliates" to post success stories on other diet websites. If you really read up on the diet it is really mainly about calorie restriction. She says people can lose weight and stay healthy on as little as 500 calories a day (that part is not in the WW article) and exercise and drinking water are not neccessary. While I don't doubt people can lose weight that way, I don't think it's healthy.

[bluesmoke]

I agree with Fluffybear here. I have strong reservations about low carb and low fat together being healthy or a long term solution for weight loss. I would much rather listen to Drs Atkins and/or the Eades and all the current research about carb restricted diets. This just seems like the same old low calorie routine that cannot be sustained for life. Nyah Levi

[fluffybear]

I am not only skeptical of Kimkins being a low fat, low calorie diet, but I am also skeptical of their marketing techniques. People on such websites are usual PAID to give their testimonials and Kimkins even offers an affiliate's program whereby people are paid a 25% commission for every person they send to the Kimkins website who joins. Now in my opinion that would be enough to make some unscrupulous people fudge on the facts or even lie about their own weight loss in order to earn money. From what I understand, this is not uncommon with commercial weight loss programs and with membership fees at $60, Kimkins is certainly a commercial enterprise.

[faduckeggs]

The diet itself is nothing new. A low fat, low carb low calorie plan has been around for ages. There was Stillman's in the 1960s and earlier. There have been many others.

Just googling "rabbit starvation" tells youwhat you need to know about low carb, low fat, low cal "diets".

[mike_d]

I figured it had to be a scam :rolleyes:

[pennink]

not to mention she started out here... just like any one of us tweaking at the diet.

[ReginaW]

The Kimkin's Diet (a derivative of the Atkin's Diet) is featured in this month's Woman's World magazine. However, I am still skeptical considering every photo she has ever posted of herself looks like a different woman. I realize people look different when they have lost a lost of weight, but I am talking about photos of her AFTER she lost weight. Even her eyes are a different color. Also she pays "affiliates" to post success stories on other diet websites. If you really read up on the diet it is really mainly about calorie restriction. She says people can lose weight and stay healthy on as little as 500 calories a day (that part is not in the WW article) and exercise and drinking water are not neccessary. While I don't doubt people can lose weight that way, I don't think it's healthy.

Strange - her old pictures (those that used to be up on her website) are gone....not only that, but even Jimmy Moore's blog (who included that old photo in posts about her) seems to have lost it too....the "way back" machine (website archives) has no pages stored to go back and see what they cached either.....and even Jimmy Moore's blog posts that were reprinted elsewhere (Low-Carb Newsline, CarbWire) - are all missing that older photo (of her slimmed down).

WHY?

[mrfreddy]

i dont know about the pictures and the cost of her program (I paid $30.00 for a lifetime membership many months ago...), but I do think she has hit the proverbial calories count nail right on the head. They do, and if you don't address that issue, particularly as you approach your ideal weight, you will be forever stalled...
the only question is, given all the other benefits of low carbing, do you care? if you do, it's time for to watch those portions. Kimkins provides a method and support structure for that purpose.

[potatofree]

A lot of people change eyecolor.

[fluffybear]

A lot of people change eyecolor.

Unless she's had EXTENSIVE plastic surgery. Only those who saw her ORIGINAL weight loss photo compared to the one that was in the Woman's World article know what I am talking about. Make-up couldn't even account for such a change. Does the person in the red dress REALLY look like the same person as the photo before it OR the large one that was in Woman's World? ALL of these photos have been posted at one time or another by Kim (Kimmer) and said to be HER after photos.

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/4316/manyfacesofkimmerpt1.jpg

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/3510/kimmerwomensworldbn7.jpg

[potatofree]

Yes, actually. She may have had some 'work" done, and the camera angle is very different, but it does look like the same person to me.

[fluffybear]

The only thing I can see that is common to all photos is that

A-She is female (I think)

B- She has long dark hair

C- She is light skinned


PS--If she did use a plastic surgeon, she should fire him, cause he made her nose BIGGER.

[moggsy]

I was taken back by the differences even before the WW article. It would be so foolish to use such drastically different people as representations of the same woman, so I am assuming that she has had work done and has at least 2 pairs of coloured contacts. I really hope it isn't fraudulent representation as that would be yet another thing people will use against lowcarb. I give her the benefit of the doubt, but I admit that my bullpoopie detector went off the first time I saw two of her after pictures side by side. The "disguised" before pictures, while not unusual for heavy people, just adds fuel to it.

So I hope she's being honest, and if she's had work done, I want her doctor's number. That picture from her site looks like a 25 year old woman. I bet he or she could do an awesome job if I ever decide to get boob reduction/body lift.

[pennink]

I'd definitely like to see more before pics, but when I had lost 133 pounds people walked past me without knowing me. I look so vastly different from heavy to thin that I need new ID whenever I drop weight.

Then there' photoshop... ah what delights the art director at Women's World might have cooked up.

[moggsy]

Well, yeah. The WW pic is horribly airbrushed, I am surprised you can make out any of her facial features.

[TimesTwo]

It's just another crazy low food crash diet. Sure, it works. So does the cabbage diet.

[kneebrace]

It's just another crazy low food crash diet. Sure, it works. So does the cabbage diet.

TimesTwo, I'm curious about the analogy. The cabbage diet is hardly balanced. Any Low Carb diet can be perfectly balanced. The only novel thing about the Kimkins diet is that it recognizes that MOST humans need to restrict calories in addition to restricting carbs to lose bodyfat (particularly when they are close to goal ) You don't have to cut calories as drastically as some 'Kimmers' choose to.

At least it might save a lot of low carbers endless attempts to 'tweak' macronutrients in fruitless efforts to break 'stalls', when all they have to do is continue to restrict carbs and consume adequate protein, but just lower calories , which lo and behold, necessarily means dietary fat.

The whole point about low carb diets when you've got a lot of bodyfat which you intend to lose is that it is a high fat diet, (even if you don't actually eat much fat) - ie. bodyfat :)

[fluffybear]

Kneebrace,

Kimkins also severely restricts fats. You are only allowed to eat the leanest meats and no dairy. The body has to have either fat OR carbs for energy.

[TimesTwo]

At least it might save a lot of low carbers endless attempts to 'tweak' macronutrients in fruitless efforts to break 'stalls', when all they have to do is continue to restrict carbs and consume adequate protein, but just lower calories , which lo and behold, necessarily means dietary fat.I think extra calories are better cut in the form of protein, not fat. Of course, like you said, one must still get an adequate amount of protein for their size.

By the way, the cabbage diet includes (surprise) cabbage soup, other vegetables, fruit, juice, skim milk, meat, and brown rice. It allows them on specific days, though. I compared it with Kimkins because they're both drastic and well-suited to those seeking a quick fix.

[HairOnFire]

I've never been to the official kimkins website, but "another" LC forum has an entire thread going about folks who have stalled out on this plan. If you bottom our your carbs AND your fat, where do you go in a stall? It sounded like most people who had used this plan were rotating it with the regular Atkins plan.
One good question folks brought up there is - where are the "maintainers" on this plan? Can you really do this long-term without the fat?

[fluffybear]

I've never been to the official kimkins website, but "another" LC forum has an entire thread going about folks who have stalled out on this plan. If you bottom our your carbs AND your fat, where do you go in a stall? It sounded like most people who had used this plan were rotating it with the regular Atkins plan.
One good question folks brought up there is - where are the "maintainers" on this plan? Can you really do this long-term without the fat?

No one has to pay $60 for the information about the Kimkins plan. It was all put on that "other" LC message board a long time ago and the information is still all there for anyone to read if they want to wade through all the messages about Kimkins. You can find the plan, food list, etc. for Kimkins and Kimkins experiment there. As far as maintainers, there are few if any long-term maintainers there, only new people with a couple of exceptions. Also one woman who was featured in the PEOPLE MAGAZINE article about Kimkins has disavowed the Kimkins plan altogether saying it is a starvation diet. (She lost most of her weight on Atkins and the last pounds on Kimkins). She was upset that PEOPLE magazine made it look like she lost most of it on Kimkins.

[Angeline]

This diet reminds of me the Ontario based(?) Dr Beinstein's diet (not the diabetes doctor). It's also a lowcarb, low-fat diet. I know of quite a few people from my work who went on the diet. It's very very expensive. It also includes vitamins shots, supplements and medical supervision. One of the girls lost a lot of weight on this method, but didn't look better. She looked gaunt, and not well. She was always cold. She eventually went away on sick leave and never came back. The other person I know lost a lot of weight but has gained it all back.

It just didn't sound healthy to me.

[SlowNStedy]

Unless she's had EXTENSIVE plastic surgery. Only those who saw her ORIGINAL weight loss photo compared to the one that was in the Woman's World article know what I am talking about. Make-up couldn't even account for such a change. Does the person in the red dress REALLY look like the same person as the photo before it OR the large one that was in Woman's World? ALL of these photos have been posted at one time or another by Kim (Kimmer) and said to be HER after photos.

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/4316/manyfacesofkimmerpt1.jpg

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/3510/kimmerwomensworldbn7.jpg

I totally agree with Fluffybear. The original after photo looks (with the white shirt) like a completely different and much younger woman than the before photos. Understanding that losing a huge amount of weight makes most people look younger, but this is quite dramatic. The one with the red shirt (the current photo on her website) doesn't look at all like any of the others, except maybe for the haircolor, and the photo from woman's world just looks like any number of generic print models.

[Angeline]

Every picture that appears in magazine has been retouched, sometimes extensively. It's absolutely amazing the extent of the modifications sometimes. Skin is smoothed out, skin folds erased, structure of face changed, neck lengthened…the result bears only a superficial resemblance to the original. So keep that in mind. Every photo cover you see is fake fake fake.

[Samuel]

http://www.kimkins.com/images/stories/kimmer-pano.jpg

Her weight has gone down from 318 to 118 in 11 months. She ought to be happy. Here is what she said about her loose skin problem:

I only had loose skin where I expected to, which is wherever I had stretch marks on my bosom and tummy. Since I had lost 200 lbs I qualified for a reconstructive tummy tuck & bosom lift through my HMO.

[faduckeggs]

The before picture does not look like 318.

And for losing 200 pounds in 11 months, her skin sure snapped back quickly.

I have no personal knowledge one way or the other, but something strikes me as a bit off.

[mrfreddy]

And for losing 200 pounds in 11 months, her skin sure snapped back quickly.

I have no personal knowledge one way or the other, but something strikes me as a bit off.


I think I read that she had skin reduction surgery done...

[doreen T]

This diet reminds of me the Ontario based(?) Dr Beinstein's diet (not the diabetes doctor). It's also a lowcarb, low-fat diet. I know of quite a few people from my work who went on the diet. It's very very expensive. It also includes vitamins shots, supplements and medical supervision. One of the girls lost a lot of weight on this method, but didn't look better. She looked gaunt, and not well. She was always cold. She eventually went away on sick leave and never came back. The other person I know lost a lot of weight but has gained it all back.

It just didn't sound healthy to me.
That Bernstein diet clinic plan, dubbed by some as "medically supervised anorexia", is only low in carbs because calories are so low, 600-800 per day. 80-100g carbs might be "low", but still make up more than 50% of the total calories for the day.

That diet is so low in fat that clients must not use oil-based skin creams, for fear the fat will be absorbed. As a health professional, I have never heard of such a thing happening, but I do know the clinics sell their own line of special "oil free" creams and cosmetics, so it could just be a marketing ploy :rolleyes:.

CBC's Marketplace had some interesting things to say about the Dr. B. clinics. Check it out .. http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/bernstein_diet/



Doreen

[fluffybear]

I think I read that she had skin reduction surgery done...

I can understand a tummy tuck and butt lift or whatever, but since when does that change a person's FACE?

[VSL]

I totally agree with Fluffybear. The original after photo looks (with the white shirt) like a completely different and much younger woman than the before photos. Understanding that losing a huge amount of weight makes most people look younger, but this is quite dramatic.

The first 'after' also looks like it's from an earlier time period that the 'before' as well!

I remember as well that someone noticed that one of the 'after' pictures of one of her 'customers' on her website was actually some model called Louise Vyent (so it wouldn't suprise me to learn other photos are also fake):
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=323747

[mrfreddy]

I can understand a tummy tuck and butt lift or whatever, but since when does that change a person's FACE?


photoshopping, botox, facework too maybe... but whatever, we get it, she might be posting fake pics, maybe so....

[RobinDBois]

only two letter are needed for this : B and S

[Samuel]

Here is one of Kimkins customers. She must have had a tummy tuck too. She lost 47 lbs in 3 months.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/227/490659212_301910b609_m.jpghttp://farm1.static.flickr.com/232/490659208_05c0564f40_m.jpg

[HairOnFire]

Here is one of Kimkins customers. She must have had a tummy tuck too. She lost 47 lbs in 3 months.

I don't think you necessarily need abdominoplasty after losing only 47 pounds. Especially if you are exercising regularly. There's a lot to be said for weight training.

This one looks more believable, at any rate. Nice swimsuit, too.

[highsteaks]

I have seen people get to work on Photoshopping pictures. You can change hair color, eye color, brighten teeth, even give someone a tan! All blemishes, eye bags, any imperfections may be removed...it's a powerful program and pretty easy for even a beginner to use. I was amazed the first time I saw a picture go from blah to beauty with just a few clicks.

[pennink]

And EVERY mag picture is touched up. Every one of them for some reason or other.

[Samuel]

I hope she'll stay on the low carb lifestyle to keep her beauty for a long time. If she returns back to eating carbs, her story will go like this:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/227/490659212_301910b609_m.jpghttp://farm1.static.flickr.com/232/490659208_05c0564f40_m.jpghttp://farm1.static.flickr.com/227/490659212_301910b609_m.jpg .............?
...... Before .............. After ............ 2 years later ........ 5 years later

[TimesTwo]

What's up with all the posed clothes catalogue-type pictures on that site? They're mixed in with all of the regular people.

[fluffybear]

I hate to break it to people but many commercial diet pay people for testimonials. In my opinion, that is enough motivation for a person to not only touch up photos but even lie about their weight loss. Sometimes I think they even switch the before and after photos. In other words they were slim once and are NOW overweight, but reverse theeir photos to look like they are slim now. In fact, I suspect that some people actually give weight loss testimonials for several different diet programs because I have seen their photos on more than one diet website. They are like people in TV ads who make a living by doings ads and testimonials. In addition some online diet websites actually steal photos from other diet websites. I am not accusing anyone of doing this but know its been done in the past. My motto is: Buyer Beware!

[ReginaW]

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/4316/manyfacesofkimmerpt1.jpg



We're supposed to believe that last one, in the red dress, is someone who is 49 years old? Puh-leez :daze:

[mrfreddy]

We're supposed to believe that last one, in the red dress, is someone who is 49 years old? Puh-leez :daze:


this is all rather beside the point, isnt it?

the real point here is, does a reduced calorie, reduced fat, low carb approach to dieting work better than your standard low carb plan? I'd say the answer is a resounding yes, particularly when a standard lc plan leaves you stalled out rather short of your goal.

although I'm not too sure about long term maintainability of this type of plan, or of the impact on health if you take the extremely low calorie route (I dont plan to!)....

for me, I just want to use a quasi-kimkins style approach get back to my goal weight, and then take it from there... by then I should have a good idea of how much I can eat to keep that weight level... If I am hungry all the time, then I'll probably decide it aint worth it. but I do want to get there just once.

[VSL]

this is all rather beside the point, isnt it?
Not really.

Kimkins is being discussed and it appears that the woman herself may be a complete fake.

PSMF etc. is also being discussed in this thread, but so is 'Kimmer' and her authenticity.

[pennink]

Oh, the diet works, but it's not hers. It's basically Stillmans, and so many others have come up with a similar tweak to atkins that her making money (60 bucks a pop for membership?) that it just seems unfair if she is, in any way, faking anything.

I also hate that all this attention might make a diet that might have a chance at really helping people who can't stick to diets, or have a difficult time losing (like PCOS people, say) be judged as a fad diet.
My doctor told me low fat (which lowered the calories) and low carb. So, should my doctor then get 60 bucks from everyone she tells about this? funny thing is, when she told me this she didn't even know if it would work this well.

I don't get hungry at all on this diet. And losing a pound a day, if it continues is very similar to what gastric bypass patients lose.

And has anyone who has seen some gbp people eat after? I have and they fill up on stupid calories very often. I once sat with one girl who had lost 60 pounds in just over 2 months but she filled up on fries and a small shake. She said, oh, I take in only about 500 calories a day.

Uh, yeah, but you're not learning anything! she thought of it as a licence to eat whatever she wanted because her stomach would stop her from eating too much... which it did... for a time.

I pray that this time when I reach goal, oh please let it be this time, that I learn how to eat sensibly.

[fluffybear]

I may be wrong here (please correct me if I am) but does the Atkins or any other diet book devote multiple pages to making the reader agree not to hold them accountable if the diet doesn't work or kills you? I logged onto the KIMKINS website and clicked the join (PAYPAL) button to see what else was neccessary to join. Up popped a very long (several page) legal-type document saying among other things that in order to be a member of Kimkins, a person has to agree not to hold Kimkins responsible for anything ever at all. It even said a person's HEIRS could not hold KIMKINS responsible. Well my heirs would only have to hold KIMKINS responsible if I died, right? Hmmm....

[pennink]

I may be wrong here (please correct me if I am) but does the Atkins or any other diet book devote multiple pages to making the reader agree not to hold them accountable if the diet doesn't work or kills you? I logged onto the KIMKINS website and clicked the join (PAYPAL) button to see what else was neccessary to join. Up popped a very long (several page) legal-type document saying among other things that in order to be a member of Kimkins, a person has to agree not to hold Kimkins responsible for anything ever at all. It even said a person's HEIRS could not hold KIMKINS responsible. Well my heirs would only have to hold KIMKINS responsible if I died, right? Hmmm....


I'm sure there are some disclaimers with all diets (such as no diet before seeing your doctor blah blah blah...) but WOW!!!! and ACKKK!!!!

[fluffybear]

I'm sure there are some disclaimers with all diets (such as no diet before seeing your doctor blah blah blah...) but WOW!!!! and ACKKK!!!!

That's the part that bothers me. I didn't see any warnings of any type or "see your doctor before starting the diet" on the Kimkins website. The article in Woman's World about Kimkins did have a precautionary note It said that people with Type 1 diatbetes, renal disease or who were pregnant and nursing should not do Kimkins and people should see their doctor before doing Kimkins, but the Kimkins website did NOT say that. In fact, Kimmer said on the website that Kimkins is fine for ALL diabetics.

[pennink]

Woman's World has better lawyers and a smarter editor.

[SlowNStedy]

this is all rather beside the point, isnt it?
I don't believe this is beside the point at all.
A lower fat, lower calorie LC might very well be a faster, more efficient way to lose weight.
The point is, that when you have a website and are charging a fee based on expertise of "this-is -how-I-lost-the-weight" and then using questionable photos and testimonials, the whole thing falls into the realm of the back-of-the-magazine diet pills and creams that promise to grow your breasts or get rid of your cellulite.
If you do a Google search of Kimkins, you will find a number of web pages set up by members of her "affiliate program" that make claims such as "I'm losing weight too fast" and "I can't stop losing". To me, this kind of stuff will only contribute to any kind of LC being perceived as a "fad diet".

[fluffybear]

I don't believe this is beside the point at all.
A lower fat, lower calorie LC might very well be a faster, more efficient way to lose weight.
The point is, that when you have a website and are charging a fee based on expertise of "this-is -how-I-lost-the-weight" and then using questionable photos and testimonials, the whole thing falls into the realm of the back-of-the-magazine diet pills and creams that promise to grow your breasts or get rid of your cellulite.
If you do a Google search of Kimkins, you will find a number of web pages set up by members of her "affiliate program" that make claims such as "I'm losing weight too fast" and "I can't stop losing". To me, this kind of stuff will only contribute to any kind of LC being perceived as a "fad diet".

I agree and the bottom line is no one HAS to pay $60 to lose on Kimkins if they want to try it. All the information they need in on the internet if they want to take the time to search for it.

[potatofree]

She's had her weight-loss success and trying to make money on it. It's the American way. ;) There are always going to be those out to toot their own horn and try to make a name for themselves. She just chose to try to profit from it instead of peddling her success for the attention. <shrug>

[RobinDBois]

I agree and the bottom line is no one HAS to pay $60 to lose on Kimkins if they want to try it. All the information they need in on the internet if they want to take the time to search for it.

Ehhhh... I'm not advocating KIMKINS, but anyone serious about doing a diet MUST be willing to at least buy the BOOK !

Spending money to get the proper information is wise.

:-)

[mrfreddy]

...the bottom line is no one HAS to pay $60 to lose on Kimkins if they want to try it. All the information they need in on the internet if they want to take the time to search for it.

you are right, you can find all the info you need elsewhere... the only reason to join her website is if you are interested in the type of support provided there, in the forums, exchanging ideas with other dieters, etc. etc - all of which could be considered quite helpful and actually a bargain for the price charged.

[mrfreddy]

I don't believe this is beside the point at all.
A lower fat, lower calorie LC might very well be a faster, more efficient way to lose weight.
The point is, that when you have a website and are charging a fee based on expertise of "this-is -how-I-lost-the-weight" and then using questionable photos and testimonials, the whole thing falls into the realm of the back-of-the-magazine diet pills and creams that promise to grow your breasts or get rid of your cellulite.
If you do a Google search of Kimkins, you will find a number of web pages set up by members of her "affiliate program" that make claims such as "I'm losing weight too fast" and "I can't stop losing". To me, this kind of stuff will only contribute to any kind of LC being perceived as a "fad diet".


from my point of view, as someone who has stalled for about 5 years following Atkins advice, who's looking for a way to drop those last 15 or so pounds-if her methods work, I could really care less if she doctored up her photos somewhat...

[fluffybear]

Ehhhh... I'm not advocating KIMKINS, but anyone serious about doing a diet MUST be willing to at least buy the BOOK !

Spending money to get the proper information is wise.

:-)

There is no book. Kimmer (her nickname) mainly just combined parts of the Atkins and Stillman diets plus she does a lot of fasting (eating nothing). her plan has been posted on various websites which can be accessed for free.

ps: Here is the basic Kimkins diet as posted elsewhere on this forum:


Rules for Kimkins and K/E

Here's the guidelines for Kimkins:

*Up to 20 total carbs (not 'net')
*Up to 3 cups salad type veggies or
*Up to 2 cups salad veggies + .5 cup 'cooked'
*70-90 lean protein grams
*No LC products, treats, junk or alcohol
*Just enough fat to make your menu work (don't overdo)


Here's the guidelines for the Kimmer Experiment (not M/E):

*As much lean protein as you desire
*Length of time is 3-5 days depending on how 'carbed up' you are
*Purpose is to experience 'real' ketosis (weight loss, no appetite)
*Useful as a springboard for other LC programs
*No alcohol, no cheese
*Basic condiments and spices OK (watch catsup & A1 sauce)

[fluffybear]

you are right, you can find all the info you need elsewhere... the only reason to join her website is if you are interested in the type of support provided there, in the forums, exchanging ideas with other dieters, etc. etc - all of which could be considered quite helpful and actually a bargain for the price charged.

Hey, far be it from me to tell others how to spend their money. Lord knows I have wasted tons of money myself trying one thing after another until I finally realized that I (me myself and I) was the real problem. But hey what's wrong with the support on this low carb board as well as other low carb boards?
The " Kimkins diet" is nothing new and has been been the subject of lengthy discussions including lots of support for many years now. Its just that all of a sudden it has gotten a lot of publicity. That's the only thing new.

[potatofree]

Hey, far be it from me to tell others how to spend their money. Lord knows I have wasted tons of money myself trying one thing after another until I finally realized that I (me myself and I) was the real problem. But hey what's wrong with the support on this low carb board as well as other low carb boards?
The " Kimkins diet" is nothing new and has been been the subject of lengthy discussions including lots of support for many years now. Its just that all of a sudden it has gotten a lot of publicity. That's the only thing new.

And the problem with that is....

???

[LoveMyGSDs]

It's just another crazy low food crash diet. Sure, it works. So does the cabbage diet.
You're absolutely right. It IS a crash diet. It's also been around for a long time. It's called a Protein Sparing Modified Fast (PSMF). It was originally created for off season bodybuilders who needed to drop fat fast for competition. It was also discovered to work well at breaking stalls and jumpstart weight loss. However, it should never be used long term.

Lyle McDonald wrote a book entitled The Rapid Fatloos Handbook where he provides his version of a PSMF and states that only the heaviest people doing it (defined as males with over 26% bodyfat and females with over 35%) can do it for up to 12 weeks. However, he includes 2 "free meals" per week. He also refers to it as a crash diet up front and says he'd rather see people take the "sane and slow approach to fat loss", but he knows that people will always crash diet, so he tried to come up with the "safest" way to do so.

[ReginaW]

And the problem with that is....

???

Yup...nothin' wrong with raking in over half-a-mil since October telling folks to basically starve themselves. :rolleyes:

[pennink]

I really don't see the starving part. My doctor has always suggested a 1000 calorie diet for me. I just eat low carb food to make that up and therefore I'm not hungry, I eat balanced meals, and I'm losing.

The only problem i have is her taking credit and making money on others' research.

[Kristine]

Yup...nothin' wrong with raking in over half-a-mil since October telling folks to basically starve themselves. :rolleyes:

Amen. IMO, anyone who wants guidance for crash dieting should throw 30 bucks Lyle MacDonald's way, not at a random tweaker like Kimmer.

The only problem i have is her taking credit and making money on others' research.

This is what bothers me, too. I think it's extraordinarily tacky to expect money for what she does. It wouldn't bother me if she was just soliciting donations to help with out-of-pocket costs, or if she was selling an e-book with original content. It doesn't sound like that's what's going on.

[fluffybear]

And the problem with that is....

???

I didn't say there was anything wrong with that.

I simply meant that the diet is:

A. nothing new
B. pretty much the same thing as the Stillman ow a lowfat version of the Atkins (1972 version) diet
C. something that has already been published on this and other websites

[potatofree]

There aren't many diet books out there that can claim NOT to be profiting off someone else's research. :lol:

[potatofree]

I didn't say there was anything wrong with that.

I simply meant that the diet is:

A. nothing new
B. pretty much the same thing as the Stillman ow a lowfat version of the Atkins (1972 version) diet
C. something that has already been published on this and other websites

Atkins is basically Banting, South Beach is glorified Atkins made more PC by demonizing sat fat, Kimkins is a crash diet with a cute name.

There's nothing new under the sun, it's all in the packaging.

[SandyDown]

I hope not to offend anyone here by saying my 2p, and I hope my thoughts would be taken at face value - i.e. just thoughts :) but here it goes.
Many people would spend money to use a nutritionists or to attend diet classes (e.g. WW classes) and support groups – both nutritionist and classes organisers charge loads of money for each session, and they are using everyone else’s research etc, if she is giving individual advice to members and checking fitday of any member who asks her to – then she is entitled to charge just as much as any other nutritionist.

BTW: Did Dr Atkins charge for his private consultation session or did he give his advice freely?

[pennink]

OH of course Dr A charged. He was, of course a doctor! I don't think she is any type of expert.

It feels like copyright infringement -- using the work of others to make yourself money. Perhaps she should just write a book and collaborate with some educated people and then have more cred. I dunno... like the diet (not to extreme), but the site bugs me.

[potatofree]

If you read all the success stories in the Atkins book and don't "measure up", you could say the same thing. Every appearance I saw him make showed him standing in front of tables laden with food, trumpeting the plan as a luxurious, abundant way to eat in an unlimited way and have the pounds melt away.

Tell that to the people who stick to the plan to the letter and realize they ahve to STILL cut calories to lose and never get to the point where they can eat most of the stuff he showed!

[potatofree]

I've questioned it after reading a few blogs where people were debating the differences in *results not typical* advertising.

[VSL]

Unfortunately for Kimmer, even though the really questionable testimonials seem to have been removed, 'her' pictures are all over the internet along with stories about the others.

[fluffybear]

I hope not to offend anyone here by saying my 2p, and I hope my thoughts would be taken at face value - i.e. just thoughts :) but here it goes.
Many people would spend money to use a nutritionists or to attend diet classes (e.g. WW classes) and support groups – both nutritionist and classes organisers charge loads of money for each session, and they are using everyone else’s research etc, if she is giving individual advice to members and checking fitday of any member who asks her to – then she is entitled to charge just as much as any other nutritionist.

BTW: Did Dr Atkins charge for his private consultation session or did he give his advice freely?

That's just the point. She is not a professional nutritionist in any sense of the word. She was just a dieter like the rest of us who posted on another low carb message board. She changed a couple of diets to meet her own needs--a practice called "tweaking" that many of us have done. From her accounts she was successful in losing weight, but so have many other people. Just look at Judy NY and Gee-ma on THIS website to see some successful dieters. They give their advice and or /encouragment free. I am not saying Kimmers is doing anything unethical or illegal. But why pay for info and encouragment you can get for free?

[fluffybear]

Atkins is basically Banting, South Beach is glorified Atkins made more PC by demonizing sat fat, Kimkins is a crash diet with a cute name.

There's nothing new under the sun, it's all in the packaging.

That is true with one glaring difference. Dr. Atkins and and Dr. Agaston (South Beach) were (are) both cardiologists who put a lot of time and effort into their medical research to make sure it was healthy and workable with funded studies.
Their work is the cumulation of lifetimes dedicated to helping people lose weight in a healthy way.

[pennink]

I'm just sticking to sensible fats, low carb, and keeping the calories in line.

[ReginaW]

I really don't see the starving part. My doctor has always suggested a 1000 calorie diet for me. I just eat low carb food to make that up and therefore I'm not hungry, I eat balanced meals, and I'm losing.

The only problem i have is her taking credit and making money on others' research.

At 1000-calories and 279 (and now 231) pounds, you're starving not only for basal metabolic requirements (energy just to be without movement) but nutrients.

Sorry your doctor is an idiot.

[LoveMyGSDs]

At 1000-calories and 279 (and now 231) pounds, you're starving not only for basal metabolic requirements (energy just to be without movement) but nutrients.

Sorry your doctor is an idiot.
I thought the exact same thing.

[Samuel]

Theoritically, if your body requires 2000 calories, and you eat 1000 calories of food you should expect your body to get the other 1000 calories from your body fat, give you all the energy you need and feel you like if nothing has changed.

Practically, things go a little different. Your body looks at your body fat as your precious energy reserve which will save your life one day when food shortage takes place. For this reason, your body tries to fix it by giving you less energy in order to reduce the amount of body fat which it needs to consume.

When we talk about reducing your carb intake to the amount which makes your body itself ask for only 1000 calories, things are different. The process go the opposite way. Reducing the carb intake has caused your body to consume 1000 calories of body fat, therefore by eating 1000 calories you have supplied your body with every thing it needed. It'll give you all the energy you want and you'll feel great.

[ReginaW]

Theoritically, if your body requires 2000 calories, and you eat 1000 calories of food you should expect your body to get the other 1000 calories from your body fat, give you all the energy you need and feel you like if nothing has changed.

Practically, things go a little different. Your body looks at your body fat as your precious energy reserve which will save your life one day when food shortage takes place. For this reason, your body tries to fix it by giving you less energy in order to reduce the amount of body fat which it needs to consume.

When we talk about reducing your carb intake to the amount which makes your body itself ask for only 1000 calories, things are different. The process go the opposite way. Reducing the carb intake has caused your body to consume 1000 calories of body fat, therefore by eating 1000 calories you have supplied your body with every thing it needed. It'll give you all the energy you want and you'll feel great.

Your evidence to support this?

[pennink]

thank you Samuel.

I have to say, the negativity on this board is growing and growing. Why does anyone else really care what another finds works for them?

How dare anyone say someone's doctor is an "idiot"!

Support each other, please. It's not like we all haven't been there. I'm so far from starving, it's ridiculous (says she eating cabbage, bits of shreaded cheese and a thick breast of roasted chicken)

[Lisa N]

How dare anyone say someone's doctor is an "idiot"!

Support each other, please.

Can I point out that 'support' isn't just about telling people what they want to hear and agreeing with current majority POV or latest fad? Sometimes 'support' comes in the form of pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. ;)

Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, even if it's "Your doctor is an idiot".

[pennink]

No -- telling someone their doctor is an idiot is not the same. It's rude and doesn't make a point.

Confrontation is not saying "the emperor has no clothes". What is wrong that people can't word their responses with diplomacy and care?

Has the world of reality television sniping attitudes make people think that due to a somewhat anonymity of the Internet that they can let their manners go to the wayside?

I see many defensive and negative people--more than when I was here in the fall.

I believe my doctor, who has my blood work, and actually has a degree in medicine is better qualified to judge my health. I might have let this go, as I have in other situations, but this is too much.

If "I" want to say she's an idiot, that's my perogative, and I'd better remove myself from her patient list.

Temper your words at all costs in this world.

[Cutie 71]

for those of you who were questioning kimmer's right to make money using other people's research etc....she posted about her right to do so on page 2 of this thread below...i guess she found a legal loophole to do what she's doing

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=313485&page=2&pp=15

[highsteaks]

Has the world of reality television sniping attitudes make people think that due to a somewhat anonymity of the Internet that they can let their manners go to the wayside?


Since the poster in question has a link to her (absolutely wonderful) blog, which contains her full name and picture, I hardly think the "anonymity of the Internet" is at play here.

[pennink]

Since the poster in question has a link to her (absolutely wonderful) blog, which contains her full name and picture, I hardly think the "anonymity of the Internet" is at play here.


Sorry, you misunderstood. I wasn't JUST referring to this exchange. I've noticed it every where.

[ReginaW]

No -- telling someone their doctor is an idiot is not the same. It's rude and doesn't make a point.

Confrontation is not saying "the emperor has no clothes". What is wrong that people can't word their responses with diplomacy and care?


If my words caused you discomfort, I apologize. It's one of those days that things "get" to you, if you know what I mean.

I didn't call *you* an idiot - just your doctor, and as snarky as it may seem, I stand by my words....at your weight 1000-calories a day is dangerously low as is does not meet basal metabolic requirements and will also be deficient for essential nutrients, even with very careful planning.

If your doctor is advocating you follow a 1000-calorie a day diet, she's wrong and IMO doing you a disservice - you pay for good medical advice and 1000-calories a day at your weight (and I've been there done that) is insufficient to meet your metabolic requirements. If she's of the belief it's all about calories - she's wrong - there is a helluva lot more than calories involved.....ask her, exactly how does she expect you'll meet your requirements for, oh, choline? biotin? chrominum? etc. on 1000-calories a day. Ask her for a menu that meets all your individual requirements.....!

If she can't - ask why!

[bluesmoke]

1) I've worked in the medical field for many years, a goodly number of doctors are arrogant idiots.
2) If I had to make a choice between Regina and most of the doctors I know on nutritional advice, I would pick Regina.
3) Kimkins is nutritionally unsafe long term, denying it is putting your head in the sand.

[Samuel]

Your evidence to support this?
Are you a doctor? I know that most doctors don't believe in each others. It happened that there are many doctors among my relatives and none of them believes in Atkins diet or can even see how any other doctor can? When I meet any of them, I talk about anything but my diet! Even my personal doctor, despite that my health is doing great, he always lectures me against Atkins diet.

Unfortunately, what most doctors call an evidence does not teach me much. There is always a study which proves something and another study which proves exactly the opposite. I depend on my own experience and common sense. Now let me add some comments to each of the 3 paragraphs of my last post:

(1) Theoritically, when we eat less, we should expect our bodies to get all the missing calories from our energy stores and feel us normal. What do we get by storing energy, if we cannot use it back when we need it?

(2) Practically, under normal conditions when we reduce calories we feel hungry and dizzy. I have had about 6 low calorie diets in the past, so I know that very well. My explanation which is normally not the kind of explanation people in the medical field like, is the only one which makes sense to me.

(3) Concerning how our bodies react to carb intakes in the range of zero to 40 carbs. I have experimented this on myself about 6 months ago and actually displayed the results in one of my posts here. Unfortunately it is hard to find that post now. It was made of a table which shows different carb intake amounts and the resulting calories from food eaten each day.

The table showed that 10 net carbs have made me eat near 1000 calories while 40 carbs made me eat 2000. I have been eating untill I'm full and did not feel like not getting enough energy at any carb or calorie intake amount.

[ReginaW]

Are you a doctor? I know that most doctors don't believe in each others. It happened that there are many doctors among my relatives and none of them believes in Atkins diet or can even see how any other doctor can? When I meet any of them, I talk about anything but my diet! Even my personal doctor, despite that my health is doing great, he always lectures me against Atkins diet.

Medical doctor? No; and I think my lack of an alphabet-soup following my name is to my advantage - it's allowed me to approach the data from a perspective of curiosity and development of understanding rather than "think" I know what I was taught in med school. And, guess what, the entire biologicial reason why a low-carbohydrate diet works is right there in the anatomy & physiology textbooks medical doctors read in medical school. It's almost as if medical school later makes them disregard what they learned earlier!

When I've presented to physicians and other healthcare professionals (yes, I've been invited to present at various conferences and seminars over the years, despite my lack of formal medical training), the first thing I do is provide each attendee with a textbook, instruct them to open to the page I'd like them to, and take them through the basics once again. I make it a joke, a game, and it sets the stage for the next set of data I present.....the approach I use lays the groundwork to open up the possibility for "getting it" as I continue....

With the hard data from studies, masked to not identify which diet was which for the conclusions.....and I let them decide which one worked better for human metabolism, risk factor improvements and weight.....then I move to present side-by-side menus of each diet, and most agree that both look good, despite the fact one is absent grains. The clincher is the nutrient profile of each - when I show how miserable the low-fat diet is for essential nutrients, compared with the high nutrient density of the low-carb diet (they still don't see which is which explicitly, although they know what the topic is), it's the logical next step to want to know why it's better....which takes me back to the textbook to go step-by-step through substrate utilization in glucose and fat metabolism, and which essential nutrients are required along the way....and what a deficiency leads to in the metabolic works in the short term and long term.

I've used this approach with physicians, nurses, CDE's, school teachers, and others - and it always works....not because I'm an expert, not because I'm special - but because it makes them look at what they already know!

Are there still naysayers? Of course, but each time I present and capture one or two or three in the audience, it builds understanding outside the paradigm dogma and makes them start to question what they think they "know" about diet and health; and even the naysayers are left with a more positive understanding of the biological basis of carbohydrate restriction.

That said, my question to you was "Your evidence to support this?" to the contention that somehow 1000-calories on a low-carb diet is physiologically different than 1000-calories on a low-fat diet.

While you want to use anecdotal experience/evidence as your basis, that's fine for an "n of 1" - but what about across a population? What exactly is one risking if they take your anecdotal experience and put it into action?

We have data that finds chronic nutrient deficiency leads to chaos in the endocrine system and central nervous system (the two are intimately dependent on each other); 1000-calories each day, for an average person, is simply not enough calories to provide enough food-based essential nutrients (vitamins, mineral, trace elements, fatty acids and amino acids).

We have good data the body will adapt and work with what it does for a short-period and a semi-extended period of time (months). We have good data that even over true extended periods, the body will adapt and work with what it has - but over longer and longer periods, begins to fail, first in small subtle ways and then in a cascade....such data isn't in weight loss trials, but in studies of eating disorders, malnutrition, stunting in children, starvation studies conducted by the military, etc.

Which is why I wish researchers would cross-talk more and open up access more to various journals - the data to really begin to connect the dots isn't accessible easily, and I think it should be! I've spent countless dollars having to pay for access to hundreds of journals to write my dissertation, and the data is there - it just needs to be connected to make sense on the whole.

So, then, you said
Theoritically, when we eat less, we should expect our bodies to get all the missing calories from our energy stores and feel us normal. What do we get by storing energy, if we cannot use it back when we need it?

Our stored energy is definitely there for use - and over short periods, a severe calorie restriction will not result in long-term damage to the system (metabolism); however, over a longer period of time, as the calorie restriction remains chronic and constant, the body begins to make compromises - compromises that can and will have a detrimental effect on long-term health if continued for a prolonged period of time; and more specifically when chronic essential nutrient deficiency is also present.

The table showed that 10 net carbs have made me eat near 1000 calories while 40 carbs made me eat 2000. I have been eating untill I'm full and did not feel like not getting enough energy at any carb or calorie intake amount.

Don't take this the wrong way, but an additional 20g of carbohydrate results in an additional absolute 80-calories more, not 1000 calories more.....your CHOICES increased your calorie load, not the carbohydrate per se.

If you're consuming just 1000-calories a day, I truly hope you're careful with your planning and are ensuring adequate intake of essential nutrients.....it's next to impossible at the level of calories, and I worry that at some point when you do increase your calories, you'll see what I'm talking about when your metabolism reacts to reverse the condition of famine you've created in an effort to maintain weight.

[pennink]

"ReginaW said: We have data that finds chronic nutrient deficiency leads to chaos in the endocrine system and central nervous system (the two are intimately dependent on each other); 1000-calories each day, for an average person, is simply not enough calories to provide enough food-based essential nutrients (vitamins, mineral, trace elements, fatty acids and amino acids)."

I just want to ask how you feel if supplements are given, the person on such diet has metabolism of next to nothing due to medication, and must lose weight to save his/her life?

Just asking. I really do want to know.

[ReginaW]

I just want to ask how you feel if supplements are given, the person on such diet has metabolism of next to nothing due to medication, and must lose weight to save his/her life?

Just asking. I really do want to know.

After many years (six) of suggesting folks take supplements, I've realized they can not offer the same nutritional benefit as nutrients coming from real food each day; that's because no multivitamin or nutrient-specific supplement offers the broad spectrum of unknown co-factors our metabolism uses in the process of utilizing essential nutrients. That doesn't mean I now say don't take a good multi-vitamin, fish oil (omega-3), or other supplements to overcome deficiencies or prevent deficiency. My perspective now is to first ensure you're meeting requirements with food (very doable with carbohydrate restriction) and use the supplements as your safety net, not your primary source for meeting nutrient requirements.

Previous/ongoing use of prescriptions drugs can definitely impair metabolic function and inhibit the processes required for weight loss and maintenance. If I were workign with you personally (and yes, I do work with folks referred to me by their physician, *chuckle* quack that I am), I'd first ask your doctor to do a full panel on you - CBC and nutrient assays, to see if you're running at a deficiency for major nutrients like vitamin D, C, etc., and to see ferritin, calcium, potassium, etc. These days I take a much more targeted approach with supplements, rather than a shot-gun hope this works appraoch.

If you're deficit, we'd work together to plan out how to use food and supplements to heal the deficiencies and provide adequate nutrients for all your other requirements. That would be based upon your specific tastes, cooking habits, shopping habits and foods you don't like/do like. I'd help you learn how to plan a nutrient dense menu and for a few weeks work with you to do it.

Id' specifically increase your calorie load for one thing; and yes, you'll gain some weight for a week or two as your body recovers from the severe calorie restriction - that's expected! - and then we'd tweak your menus and eating so you lose weight again and are doing it in a nutritionally-dense manner. You'd get labs with your physician regularly to see if it's helping and improving any deficiencies identified and where needed, tweaked again.

I've been doing this for a long time now and I have to say, I've yet to find somene who only can eat 1000-calories a day, or who can for the long haul. That level, unless you're 4' 10" is simply insufficient for metabolic processes and essential nutrients.....at some point, something's gotta give and it's your health. At some point the body simply makes compromises that over time are detrimental, but keep you alive.....our primal brain works for two things - survival and reproduction - it doesn't know anything else.....and a constant, chronic state of malnutrition will compensate to do whatever it takes to keep you alive as long as possible. But at some point, without adequate levels of everything it needs, it will fail.

[pennink]

You see... I have heart failure. I'm on drugs that slow my heart rate and therefore it's imperative that I lose fairly fast.

I've had the advice of nephrologist, cardiologist and dietician along with my GP. I take Shaklee supplements, not synthetic frankenvitamins.

Compared to eating a high-sodium, chemical-enhanced diet that I did when I couldn't figure out what was making me cough persistently (duh... chf), this is perfect for me.

Unfortunately, though, most dieters do not have the benefit of a team of physicians as I have (or Canadian healthcare that makes it budget easy), to monitor health constantly. So many people look at self cures and CAN end up in a mess.

My doctor (nephrologist) lectures around the world, and he said that unfortunately, this was the only way to get to a safe weight.

I will not, of course, stay at 1000 calories for the rest of my life. The benefits, as my doctor says, are greater than the risks at this point.

I cannot, and wouldn't dream of, speaking for anyone else's situation. But I will ensure that I eat a balanced diet and include natural supplements forever.

Thank you for your response.

[ReginaW]

You see... I have heart failure. I'm on drugs that slow my heart rate and therefore it's imperative that I lose fairly fast.

I've had the advice of nephrologist, cardiologist and dietician along with my GP. I take Shaklee supplements, not synthetic frankenvitamins.

Compared to eating a high-sodium, chemical-enhanced diet that I did when I couldn't figure out what was making me cough persistently (duh... chf), this is perfect for me.

Unfortunately, though, most dieters do not have the benefit of a team of physicians as I have (or Canadian healthcare that makes it budget easy), to monitor health constantly. So many people look at self cures and CAN end up in a mess.

My doctor (nephrologist) lectures around the world, and he said that unfortunately, this was the only way to get to a safe weight.

I will not, of course, stay at 1000 calories for the rest of my life. The benefits, as my doctor says, are greater than the risks at this point.

I cannot, and wouldn't dream of, speaking for anyone else's situation. But I will ensure that I eat a balanced diet and include natural supplements forever.

Thank you for your response.

Thanks for the additional information, which if it had been part of your earlier reply may have tempered my response a bit. I reacted to what you said "My doctor has always suggested a 1000 calorie diet for me." which implied that the 1000-calorie limit was not something new, or specifically for your given medical condition, which has a different urgency than somone who is just way too heavy and needs to lose weight.

[pennink]

Thanks for the additional information, which if it had been part of your earlier reply may have tempered my response a bit. I reacted to what you said "My doctor has always suggested a 1000 calorie diet for me." which implied that the 1000-calorie limit was not something new, or specifically for your given medical condition, which has a different urgency than somone who is just way too heavy and needs to lose weight.

no worries... i actually don't like to lug that info around too much. They tried WW thing--low fat (ew)--and then DASH diet (I fainted constantly), but I have a feeling I have PCOS (fun wow)... you know... years ago they put me on Paxil; another metabolic squasher, so I've finally got the key to get my weight down I'm a bit touchy. (side note: I'm no longer on Paxil as they found the breathing problem was my heart... not anxiety or asthma... how nice--75 pounds later). sigh.

[LoKarbLisa]

I can understand a tummy tuck and butt lift or whatever, but since when does that change a person's FACE?

What I also found interesting is that on LCF, when asked about how she kept her face looking so young, she went into detail about using prescription Retinol A and told everyone how to get it from their doctor. Yet, she never mentions it anymore, not even in the article.

Whoever that woman is in the red dress, that's certainly not the same woman in the original Kimmer after photo - look at the cheekbones and lips. :lol: Oh well, the beat goes on!

[MartinTD]

For those of you with a continuing interest in this topic, I'm writing a series about the authenticity issues surrounding Kimmer and Kimkins.com (http://www.slamboard.com/2007/06/30/kimkinscom-part-i-the-kimkinscom-business-partnership-case-study/) and would appreciate any additional feedback, comments or information.

[jackie-o]

Sounds interesting.

[LoKarbLisa]

Wow! This is story is already fascinating - I smell a book in the works! Can't wait for the following updates. Please don't make us wait too long. Shoot, just put them all up now, lol! I love a mystery.

[HairOnFire]

For those of you with a continuing interest in this topic, I'm writing a series about the authenticity issues surrounding Kimmer and Kimkins.com (http://www.slamboard.com/2007/06/30/kimkinscom-part-i-the-kimkinscom-business-partnership-case-study/) and would appreciate any additional feedback, comments or information.

So in other words, you've got a financial interest in the website. How "unbiased" will your series be?

[Aeryn]

For those of you with a continuing interest in this topic, I'm writing a series about the authenticity issues surrounding Kimmer and Kimkins.com (http://www.slamboard.com/2007/06/30/kimkinscom-part-i-the-kimkinscom-business-partnership-case-study/) and would appreciate any additional feedback, comments or information.

Kind of lame, seeing as you've posted the same link in the other Kimkins topics currently visible on the first page of various subforums here. In other words, my "continuing interest" doesn't include the random posts of people who sign up to lowcarber.org just to plug their own content-less blogs! :lol:

[Lynnrea]

Check the shape of her nose, particularly the end of the nose, in all pictures. It's the same woman, heavily Photoshopped/airbrushed/in debt to her plastic surgeon.

She's tweaked the original Atkins/Eades idea, and is charging money for memberhip. Ho-hum.

[pennink]

Check the shape of her nose, particularly the end of the nose, in all pictures. It's the same woman, heavily Photoshopped/airbrushed/in debt to her plastic surgeon.

She's tweaked the original Atkins/Eades idea, and is charging money for memberhip. Ho-hum.

Actually, she's almost all but stolen Stillman's diet. Oh well... lots of people want help from those who have found success, but when you go back through her posts you'll see she's just like any of us, tweaking, trying, losing, gaining...

[MartinTD]

Does anyone have an actual scan of the Woman's World article by any chance and, if so, could you PM me?

[Ree]

Does anyone have an actual scan of the Woman's World article by any chance and, if so, could you PM me?

Martin, Interesting story you are writing on Kimkins.

Have you ever met Kimmer in person? There seems to be a lot of controversy if Kimmer is even a real person.

What is your wifes name on LCF. There is a lot going on over at that site regarding Kimmer.

I will look for my copy of WW magazine and see if I still have it.

[Cutie 71]

Does anyone have an actual scan of the Woman's World article by any chance and, if so, could you PM me?

you don't have PM privileges yet...not enough posts. i think you need 25?


(btw, please tell cat "hi!" for me please :) )

[VSL]

For those of you with a continuing interest in this topic, I'm writing a series about the authenticity issues surrounding Kimmer and Kimkins.com (http://www.slamboard.com/2007/06/30/kimkinscom-part-i-the-kimkinscom-business-partnership-case-study/) and would appreciate any additional feedback, comments or information.
I've read parts one and two - I'm intrigued and will read the rest when they are posted.

Also, for anyone interested, the people over at the 'other' board are starting to really ask questions about Kimmer's authenticity. Interestingly, a poster over there is also a member of the Kimkins 'team' - people asked her if she'd met Kimmer and she conveniently avoided answering by claiming that she knew her 'off the boards' (ie, via email and phone - she still hasn't given a simple yes/no answer to the question 'have you met Kimmer in person?').

Also, I firmly believe that Kimmer's real name is Heidi Diaz - not only because of Regina's excellent sleuthing skills at finding the classmates.com picture, but also because of these Google results: http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:Rtf9av3DfJ4J:www.bestofjoomla.com/component/option,com_fireboard/func,userlist/Itemid,38/orderby,uhits/direction,DESC/limit,30/limitstart,1680/+heidi+diaz+kimmer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=uk&client=firefox-a - random gambling site
http://kimkinsdiet.blogspot.com/2007/02/try-kimkins-diet-for-free.html - notice address at the bottom of the post/comments section
(sorry if these have already been discovered and I've not seen it posted!)

[Ree]

Hasn't Kimmer said many times that her real name is Heidi?

The other board is really getting wild.

Cutie, Why don't you post on the Kimkins site anymore? Don't need to answer I am just being nosey. Just trying to figure this all out. I'm too impatient to wait for MartinTD to post the rest of the story. :)

[Cutie 71]

Hasn't Kimmer said many times that her real name is Heidi?

The other board is really getting wild.

Cutie, Why don't you post on the Kimkins site anymore? Don't need to answer I am just being nosey. Just trying to figure this all out. I'm too impatient to wait for MartinTD to post the rest of the story. :)

someone asked me in a PM if the success stories and pictures were real or not...i told them the truth. heidi apparently was reading my PMs...and didn't like the answer i gave. she sent me a scathing personally attacking email with quotes from the PMs (that's how i know she read them) & she banned me.

anyway, it's as simple as that. i would have left eventually anyway without any fuss because of some things going on...but i would not have left so abruptly without saying goodbye to anyone as she would have everyone believe.

my understanding is there are two answers being floated over there as to why i'm no longer there when the "what happened to cutie/amy?" question has been brought up.

1. i am busy with my job and community projects and no longer have time to post. (the public "party line.")

2. i hit goal and no longer care about anyone there. (privately)

anyone who knows me at all...knows that neither of those sound like "me."

what's interesting now...is that when i was first banned, my avi, siggy etc. were all taken down and i was listed as a "visitor"

apparently a lot of people were asking for me/about me...on the new site, other banned people are still banned, but i've been "revived" with a post count, title and shown as a user again...all to give the appearance that i'm still a member there and could come back and post anytime i wanted to.

but i have no access to my account and can't post...it's all just a facade.

[cwgirl]

OMG~ What a story, Cutie!! I am beyond intrigued. I wonder how many others have been banned (???) Is it just me, or is this just scandalous? :lol: I subcribed over there when it ws still cheap, but I do not visit regulary. I might have to again!

Anyway, I am curious to hear more , (all of a sudden) I have been hearing rumors here and there for awhile, but all of a sudden NOW I am interested in the dirt.

Forgive my shallowness!!
Cindy

[Ree]

Cutie, I asked where you went and was told you were busy in your personal life with your job. Kimmer said Kimkins would never turn into a LCF site where peoples PM's are read and post are deleted. I had one of my post deleted last week. Not sure why.

I'm beginning to start agreeing with everyone else over on LCF site. Things just aren't adding up.

I really want to know the rest of Martins story.

Sorry about what happened over at the Kimkins site.

I am going to start hanging out over on this site more. I have been a member for a long time, just never posted.

[cwgirl]

Ree The LCF site is "feeling" this stuff going on??? I was not sure which site people were referring to.
Thanks,
Cindy

[Ree]

OMG~ What a story, Cutie!! I am beyond intrigued. I wonder how many others have been banned (???) Is it just me, or is this just scandalous? :lol: I subcribed over there when it ws still cheap, but I do not visit regulary. I might have to again!

Anyway, I am curious to hear more , (all of a sudden) I have been hearing rumors here and there for awhile, but all of a sudden NOW I am interested in the dirt.

Forgive my shallowness!!
Cindy

I know how you feel. I just need to know now. :D

[Cutie 71]

Cutie, I asked where you went and was told you were busy in your personal life with your job. Kimmer said Kimkins would never turn into a LCF site where peoples PM's are read and post are deleted. I had one of my post deleted last week. Not sure why.



yes, she made a big public show of saying that SHE would never read PMs as she considers that unethical and publicly lambasts the owner at another site for doing such a thing. it was a sore subject and the reason why a lot of people migrated from the other site to the kimkins site to begin with. anyway, we were never supposed to worry about those kind of things happening on HER site because she has better things to do with her time than read PMs and is so much more ethical.

*ROLLEYES*

[HairOnFire]

You should not assume that a PM sent on any privately owned website will remain confidential and that admins wouldn't read it.

Cutie, did you ever receive a refund after being banned? I think a refund would have been appropriate.

[Ree]

I must admit I am a big supporter of her over at LCF. Not so sure anymore. Especially when she put up fake pictures of before and afters.

Reading people's PM's. She told me personally she would never do that.

[Ree]

You should not assume that a PM sent on any privately owned website will remain confidential and that admins wouldn't read it.

Cutie, did you ever receive a refund after being banned? I think a refund would have been appropriate.


I was going to ask also, did she refund your money.

[Cutie 71]

You should not assume that a PM sent on any privately owned website will remain confidential and that admins wouldn't read it.

Cutie, did you ever receive a refund after being banned? I think a refund would have been appropriate.

i did get a refund, yes.

i came home from work to find her scathing email and a paypal refund notification email all in one fell swoop.

[Cutie 71]

I must admit I am a big supporter of her over at LCF. Not so sure anymore. Especially when she put up fake pictures of before and afters.

Reading people's PM's. She told me personally she would never do that.

yeah, she told a lot of people that, it seems.

not that there were TOS to violate (at that time anyway, don't know what's there these days)...but i didn't violate any "standard" TOS. i let my guard down with a few trusted friends in PMs, that's it...i NEVER posted anything publicly against her or negative about the site itself. in fact, i was the "poster child" of support and did everything i could to help others on the site and support her in the process. (btw, i really did/do care about so many people there...awesome group of people when i was there!)

anyway, she had no "cause" to ban me. she just chose to throw her weight around in this power play to show me she was "boss."

whatever.

the irony is...if she had left well enough alone, i was gonna leave anyway...and quietly. she could have avoided the whole "what happened to cutie" drama that has since ensued.

[MisNoodles]

I have no personal knowledge about Kimmer, I do not know if the photos are of her or not, but I know they look like the same woman to me, and I have been using lighting, angles and photoshop to touch up my photos for years!

If you have high cheekbones (which both kimmer and I do) it amazing what the right angle can do for you. I have never used photoshop to erase bits of me that are too big, or to make myself look slimmer- you don't need to with the right angles/lighting, I don't even get acne but smoothing out the skin makes it look like a magazine ad, (which I find fun to do as a hobby) .

should her photos be taken at face value as her just woken up out of bed look? of course not but neither should any model you see in a magazine.

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q319/BallPunch/Ashley1.jpg
so this is me photoshopped. I made my yellow hair a bit more white/golden smoothed out my skin to look more like a magazine, and gave myself green eyes. I'm clearly not even very good at photoshopping (unlike people who work for WW for instance) The angle is pretty good too, I weigh 260 pounds in that photo, and no i didn't photoshop out any double chins or change anything like that!
http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q319/BallPunch/Ashley10.jpg
from the same day..

and yet BAD angles and BAD lighting can easily = http://forum.lowcarber.org/gallery/files/1/0/5/4/7/3/StillBig.jpg
Depending on how I wear my lipstick or and angle, my lips and nose can look so incredibly different, different hair styles and colours can make drastic changes, http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q319/BallPunch/Artsy%20crap/BallPunch.jpg
http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q319/BallPunch/Artsy%20crap/BlueRose.jpg


do not underestimate lighting! I am accused on a daily basis of being "fake" and in a way I am (although I freely admit I photoshop my photos as a hobby) but The pics are of me, and I believe the pics of Kimmer are of Kimmer.

[I am Kiki]

Hi all.. I just thought I'd let you know I was banned along with Amy...

I was shocked to find a very hateful email from Heidi that day, accusing me of things I didn't say or do.. We were discussing ethical issues that had been brought to our attention, via PM... Heidi, for whatever reason was reading them... I can only assume she had been doing this all along, since she would have had no reason what so ever to just pick that day to read them... And yes, I am sure she read them, because she quoted out of them... Out of context, but still quoted...

Neither Amy nor I, ever accused her of anything.. We were just trying to figure out what was going on...

I got a refund as well.. Well, I was told if I wanted it, I had to request thru PayPal, which I did...

[LoKarbLisa]

I'm curious as to why someone with nothing to hide would sit and read her members PMs? Sure sounds like a con artist that's afraid of being exposed!

Whether or not Kimmer's pics are really hers, is open for debate, BUT with her history of posting obvious fake success stories pics - and those could not possibly be debated - it only further destroys her own credibility, so how are we to believe anything that comes from her?

She told me in an email that she had poor Photoshop skills, so if indeed this is all digital smoke and mirrors, its certainly not her doing it - but why do it at all?

I'll say it again, I'm so glad all of this is slowly coming to the light. This is going to be a HUGE story! Her attitude at your defiance is the same way she reacts when you question her about anything, she gets instantly defensive and just downright mean and bitter, and I'm like WTF????? I just asked you a question!!! That's the behavior of someone with something to hide - or someone with some serious mental deficiencies.

About the PMs - is it possible that the recipients were sharing them with her? You know she has a lot of faithful minions who are also making good money off of this and they are fiercely loyal to their alien commander! :)

[LoKarbLisa]

This is the post with ALL of the pics on LCF - http://lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=8715723&postcount=10

LOL, Photoshop my behind!

[fluffybear]

do not underestimate lighting! I am accused on a daily basis of being "fake" and in a way I am (although I freely admit I photoshop my photos as a hobby) but The pics are of me, and I believe the pics of Kimmer are of Kimmer.

I could care less if someone wants to pretend they look one way when they really don't unless they are CHARGING MONEY based at least partly on their "before" and "after" photos. There is no crime involved in photoshopping photos or posting fake photos on the internet, that I know of UNLESS you are running a business based upon false claims. IF Heidi (aka Kim) is using fake photos, then isn't it in the realm of possibility that her weight loss claims are also false? Her photos are her ONLY real proof she has really lose weight. If she has really lost weight, then why on earth post fake or even photoshopped pictures? On all the weight loss boards I have seen including many commercial ones you usually can tell that a person's before and after are the same people. Even if that is not always the case, you can see that certain things about them are the same. What makes me question Kimkins is that none of her AFTER photos look like the same woman. I have seen at least 3 of her after photos and they all look like different people. Either Heidi-kims is really stupid or really deceptive. The fact that she has made hundreds of thousands and maybe even a million or more from charging for joining Kimkins, makes me think she is not dumb but very shrewd and very deceptive.

[fluffybear]

This is the post with ALL of the pics on LCF - http://lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=8715723&postcount=10

LOL, Photoshop my behind!

Thanks again for the link to those photos.

I personally think the "before" photo is really Heidi NOW based on the fact that this is almost the same photo (same hair, sweater and sunglasses, etc) photo she posted on classmates.com last year. Why oh why would anyone post THAT photo on classmates.com, if she had a newer photo of her after she lost weight?? I know I wouldn't.

I think the first two photos ARE Heidi-kims, but should be reversed. In other words the first photo is of her now and the second is her 20 years ago. (just my opinion, but does the second photo really look like someone in their 40's)?

I don't know who in the heck the other photos are, but she has claimed that ALLof the photos in that link are her at one time or another.

[LoKarbLisa]

Wow, they are saying on LCF that there is an upcoming Kimkins CRUISE - but Kimmer will not be attending????

Yeah, the whole Photoshopping thing - most people are so amazed and happy at their weight loss that they already believe they look great and don't need Photoshopping. I've never seen anyone touch up after photos, heck, some people don't even move the laundry from the sofa in the background! They're so freaking excited at the weight loss, who cares about the messy house, look at MEEEEEE! :)

[MisNoodles]

Wow, they are saying on LCF that there is an upcoming Kimkins CRUISE - but Kimmer will not be attending????

Yeah, the whole Photoshopping thing - most people are so amazed and happy at their weight loss that they already believe they look great and don't need Photoshopping. I've never seen anyone touch up after photos, heck, some people don't even move the laundry from the sofa in the background! They're so freaking excited at the weight loss, who cares about the messy house, look at MEEEEEE! :)


heh I have a feeling even after losing my weight ill wanna put on a sexy new dress, do my hair up, and take a million pics, and photoshop them all to look my just like magazine girls.

Also, Kimmer is a businesswoman now, in an industry all about *looks* of course she needs to look fantastic to sell her product.. I still think it's her, she looks the same in every photo, to me.

[Cutie 71]

About the PMs - is it possible that the recipients were sharing them with her? You know she has a lot of faithful minions who are also making good money off of this and they are fiercely loyal to their alien commander! :)

i got questions from others in PMs & emails but didn't answer all those...it was a topic i tried hard to avoid discussing with anyone 'cause i thought heidi was a friend and i was trying to be supportive and only accentuate any positive. in any case, i had only discussed the fake pictures drama with kiki via PM and believe me, kiki is in NO way blindly loyal to her! :lol:

(btw, lisa this is all really your fault...what started this discussion were posts you had made on a thread here :p )

[Samuel]

This web page shows how to contact her by phone (See contact information at bottom):

http://www.pr.com/press-release/29464

So why don't you call the number and ask them to talk to Heidi Diaz?


Contact Information
Kimkins.com
Heidi Diaz
(951) 808-0482
webmaster~kimkins.com
http://www.kimkins.com (http://www.kimkins.com/)

[Cutie 71]

i peeked in over at lowcarbfriend's kimkins forum today...wow, things are really heating up over there :exclm:

[I am Kiki]

had only discussed the fake pictures drama with kiki via PM and believe me, kiki is in NO way blindly loyal to her! :lol:


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[I am Kiki]

i peeked in over at lowcarbfriend's kimkins forum today...wow, things are really heating up over there :exclm:

You don't know the half of it.. :lol: :lol:

OK Amy, YOU do if you're keeping up or caught up...

[fizgig32]

Kiki, are you from LCF, too? I think I recognize that font. :lol:

[I am Kiki]

Kiki, are you from LCF, too? I think I recognize that font. :lol:

Ohhh that explains it... I was like, huh? Why are you asking me this? I have my pic up all over the LC baords...

But I see I don't have it on here...LOL

Yep, it's me... I never have blended in well IRL or online... :lol: :lol:

[fizgig32]

Ohhh that explains it... I was like, huh? Why are you asking me this? I have my pic up all over the LC baords...

But I see I don't have it on here...LOL

Yep, it's me... I never have blended in well IRL or online... :lol: :lol:

I'd recognize you anywhere ;) - though you have no idea who I am, surely.

*laugh*

[I am Kiki]

I'd recognize you anywhere ;) - though you have no idea who I am, surely.

*laugh*

I know who you are. I read PM's...

[fizgig32]

I know who you are. I read PM's...

:) :p

I'm a newbie over here. Strange not knowing where anything is.... :lol:

[LoKarbLisa]

Eh, just found something interesting, reading Kimmer's interview with Jimmy Moore, here's some quotes from the AGORAPHOBIC Kimmer who can't leave the house or "can't stand to even have people around her": (Kimmer's quotes in italics and bold, my comments in red)

When you're morbidly obese, life is different. VERY different. You avoid going to the movies because you're not sure you'll fit in the seats. No mention of agoraphobia there! If you do fit, you'll wear purple bruises on your hips where you squeezed against the steel chair arms.

I was sure my husband's truck was defective because the seat belt wouldn't fasten. She had to be IN the truck, don't you agree? Imagine my embarrassment when he quietly told me it was stretched as far as it would go. Still, I didn't believe him until I saw his boss, a very big man, get into the truck and fasten the seatbelt with no problem. Hmmm, sounds like there were other people around her, huh?

Since I had lost 200 lbs I qualified for a reconstructive tummy tuck & bosom lift through my HMO. I'm pretty sure the surgeon didn't come to her house and do this blindfolded, she had to go to the hospital and be surrounded by medical staff!

This is my personal favorite quote that pretty much sums up what a liar she is:

I now fit into theater seats without even touching the arms! Seat belts aren't anxiety provoking. My confidence has soared!

Those sure don't sound like the words of an agoraphobic! And more...

No longer do I wonder whether they might be embarrassed by their 318-pound mom at school events or the mall. It almost seems as though they show me off!

Oh, she makes this SO easy!

...as I dropped my pounds my “too big” clothes were donated to the homeless shelter where I volunteer.

Okay, this quote almost me pee myself:

Just last weekend I was watching a movie at the theater and when it finished I realized I had only watched a few minutes of it! It was a comedy and I didn't even hear the laughter surrounding me

And finally, a Freudian slip perhaps?

I almost wish I was starting my weight loss journey all over again.

[HairOnFire]

I was making excuses to go out after I lost all my weight, especially after I passed my goal weight. Jesus, you couldn't keep me at home! I bought new clothes, went dancing with my friends, dated a bunch of different men - it was great!

Moderator note: This thread has been closed to further replies. Please keep discussion in the current thread:

Jimmy Moore Lost 13 Pounds In First Four Days On Kimkins (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=337684)