http://www.carbwire.com/2007/06/05/...he_kimkins_diet

Jimmy Moore Begins 50-Pound Weight Loss Quest On The Kimkins Diet
Posted by Jimmy Moore on June 5

Today, I'm just gonna be dead-straight honest with you about something I have long been dealing with regarding my life. Ever since I lost 180 pounds on the Atkins diet in 2004, it seems I have reached a point where my weight just refuses to go down beyond a certain point. I've been okay with this for over two years, but I believe now it's time for me to act.

My weight has done the creepy crawly thing on me lately and when I returned home from vacation last week in the Smoky Mountains on Saturday, I couldn't believe what the scale showed I now weigh--248 pounds! EEEEK! What in the world has happened?!

Just so you know, I haven't been cheating on high-carb junk I don't need or anything redonkulously silly and stupid like that. But all I have to say right now is ARGH! Alright, now that I've got that little temper tantrum out of my system, it's time to get down to the nitty gritty of losing this weight.

How?

For the past year at my blog I have been sharing lots of great success stories, recipes, and general information about the amazing new low-carb weight loss program called Kimkins. It was recently featured in People and Woman's World magazines and is one of the hottest diets of 2007.

So here I am starting my Kimkins journey this week. I fully EXPECT to lose at least 50 pounds quite possibly by this Fall. It may sound like a lofty goal for somebody who has already shed 180 pounds, but I don't think so. Even if I just lose one pound a week, I'll reach my weight loss goal in less than a year. This IS possible!

See, even those of us who have been able to attain great success on the low-carb lifestyle occasionally find ourselves in need of encouragement and inspiration to recommit ourselves to get focused on what is most important--controlling our weight and health for life!

Kimkins diet is getting famous real fast! As I said before, the only value I see in this diet is using Atkins original carb counting formula.

that seems to be really missing the whole point of kimkins... the entire jist of it is to reduce calories, along with keeping carbs to rock bottom minimums... the carb counting/fiber subtracting bit is really minor aspect.

There is no value in self-induced starvation...and that is what KimKims is IMO.

i think there is real value in going beyond the Atkins vague-ish advice to "eat to satisfaction" or whatever it was. That advice clearly only works to a certain point, for most folks anyway. Even Dr. A himself was always a bit pudgy.

My doctor told me that I could not get anywhere near "starvation" eatting 80 grams of lean protein a day, and I certainly don't feel like I'm starving. I feel great.

I know lowcarb/lowfat is not for everyone, and I also ackowledge a lot of iffy things with Kimmer and her website, etc.

But I also know I lost 12 lbs in 8 days and feel wonderdful right now, and I feel hopeful that this woe is a healthful answer I have been looking for.

To a degree I agree with you - for a long time I was highly critical of Atkins books, not because they were wrong, but because they simply were too vague, especially with the re-introductions in OWL. I wrote a number of articles way back - oh probably in 2002-2004 - about how to modify as you go along and swap out the higher fat items for more carbohydrate. Calories - no matter how many disagree - do matter at some point in the process of losing weight....what one can eat and be in a calorie deficit at 250-300 is significantly different than what they can eat when they're at 180-220, and even less is needed when they're then 150-180.

Atkins didn't get into the issue of calories enough IMO, and I think that's because for many, many people, appetite regulates on its own as they continue along - somehow intuitively they start eating less and reducing portion size, or they switch from something like cream to half & half...but for the folks that that doesn't "just happen" on it's own - those who don't quite find their satiety and their calories fall into place - yes, they do need much more information than Atkins published (although in Atkins for Life, he did get a bit more into what it takes for maintenance finally).

My big concern with KimKims is from some of the advice she's written in her blog - things like "why would you want to eat more calories" to a woman who weighed (I think it was) 280-pounds and was eating just 600-800 calories a day - sorry, but at 280, that's worse than starvation - it's critical famine and potentially doing a lot of damage long-term.

In my experience, and those I've worked with, the lowest calorie intake to consider is basal metabolic rate (calculators are online)....it's at least the calorie load you need for basic body function before movement (body temp, heart beat, circulation of blood, hormone production, etc - it all requires calories) unless you're specifically with serious metabolic challenges - if that's the case, then you really should do nutrient monitoring, because the less calories you're eating, the less variety of foods you're eating, the more likely you'll be deficient for essential nutrients - often ones not included in multi-vitamins, like biotin (some have it, but not all).

Samuel,


You forgot to print the last paragraph in which Jimmy tells us he is going to try "one of the five versions of Kimkins am currently doing and why I believe this program is what's right for me to do at this time."

My question is, if Kimkins works, why are their FIVE versions. I can see maybe TWO--regular and fast weight loss, but why FIVE versions??

I have to wonder what data he bases that on?

Not to be too contrarian, but with 80g of protein, that's 320-calories, and 20g total carbs and let's pretend 8g fiber - 12g digestible calorie carrying carbs - that's another 48 calories - so without counting fat calories, you're at 368-calories.

Eating lean meats only, means about 10-15% of the meat is actually fat, so in the 12-ounces of lean meat (about what 80g of protein translates to), you'll have about 1.2-1.8 ounces of what you're eating providing fat calories - or 39.6g-59.4g fat - so, another 356-to-534 calories; add in some dressing or oil for the veggies, another 200-calories and you're still only up to 924-to-1102 calories.

If your current weight is correct - 208.4 - that's starvation/famine to your metabolism.... you're too far below basal metabolic rate, and that's where your body will fight to conserve energy in the long-term. You may lose now (short-term), my worry is what happens later?

Regina, how do you feel about water fasts?

My thoughts exactly Regina!!

I assume that it allows 20 total carbs/day. Is this what you refer to as rock bottom? I really don't know all the rules of Kimkins diet.

Reducing carbs automatically reduces calorie intake. So at least part of her calorie reduction was going to happen even if she did not enforce it.

Now we have something to agree upon! However I think her carb reduction can help at least partially with the starvation problem.

Up to three days - can be good, so I don't see any problem with it on a short-term basis....extended, habitual - not so good.

Not sure what actual carb count kimmer suggested, but I believed it to be 900. My own doctor told me 900 to 1000. I asked about starvation and she laughed.