Just wanted to bring up something that really bothers me--at the KK site I read this comment (won't say by who)

I have a history of breast cancer in my family and I knew (in my head) that fat is like fuel for cancer cells.


Now, I am a 2 yr b.c. survivor, and have done lots of reading. All the new research shows *sugar* is what fuels cancer cells.

I didn't post over there (I really don't post there anymore but was looking around for stuff about the whole Jimmy thing) --should I go back and say something?

Or is it not worth the effort?

Robin, I would politely ask where they read that. As a survivor it's a very valid question for you to ask. You might also post some links to let them know that sugar is cancer's true preferred food.

Somehow every time I think of Kimkins dieters and Kimmer and I reminded of a moronic doctor I saw once who insisted I wasnt counting my calories correctly because I had to have been leaving things out and to prove his point he asked me if I counted the calories in sugar free chewing gum.

It just strikes me as something Kimmer would say. I lived on 300 calories a day or less for extended periods in my life and I thought I could do it forever but I couldnt, it screwed me up in so many ways and I am still suffering the consequences from it. I feel terrible saying this but most of the Kimkins losers are going to regain the weight like I suspect Kimmer did.

The thing is, I am sure she could find lots of articles saying that, because many docs still believe it.

Maybe I will start finding links and post them.

that's what i would do.

and no sense in looking for posts about jimmy, robin. i heard the place got a major "sanitation" yesterday afternoon/evening.

Oh, no, I meant looking for links to research which shows cancer cells are fueled by carbs.

this is what my post was referring to

http://kimkinssurvivors.wordpress.com/.

The first I heard of Kimkins was on here. There was a thread, then a couple, so I started reading. After very few posts I decided it was a low fat plan and stopped reading. At that point I didn't think anything of it....after all others, like South Beach promote lower fat. Once of the things I like about low carb is getting to eat full fat dairy. (Other things too, but fat free or reduced fat dairy - cheese, yogurt, etc - is gross) Anyway, I obviously didn't read enough and just moved on.

About 2 weeks ago I first started hearing negatives. Even with Jimmy Moore, I just ignored it....he seems like a good guy, but not my style. I couldn't believe JM was so..."enthusiastic", but that's part of his style! I've noticed the higher number of posts on forums and blogs related to Kimkins, but again ignored it....I don't follow vegan posts, why would I follow a low fat post?

Last week I followed a link, then another and another. I was shocked!! I had no idea that such low calories were encouraged!! And then I read a transcript where she ("Kimmer") told someone to take laxatives and sodium bicarb!! One or the other is bad enough....but she told someone to do both!!

So...after a lot of reading, this is what I've come up with...I have not joined the site. I have gone there with the intent of checking the message boards, but laughed when I learned i would have to pay $60 to do so!!
1. Kimkins is not a low carb plan. It is a low calorie plan, a very low calorie plan....which simply limits carbs along with everything else. To call it a low carb plan is decieving and probably is used to take advantage of a certain population.
2. Kimkins is not a safe plan. Extreme low calories can only result in eventual malnutrition. For some it may take days or weeks, and others months....but if kept up long enough there will be serious malnutrition issues. It is neither safe nor sustainable.
3. Kimkins is a little nuts, but also apparently a good (but sleezy) business woman. She apparently knows marketing....she sure did learn fast if not. She posts all over the place, acting like someone on the plan....or someone asking about the plan....in a deceitful way. And from one blog, if true, she's at minimum a bit neurotic. She is sitting on the top of her empire, all alone. And I'll bet she's already made plans on how to get out with the highest amount of cash and least chance of being a fugitive....or being caught!
4. Kimkins "works", in the sense that you can loose large amounts of pounds in a fairly short time. Kimkins, however, has got to contribute, at minimum, to muscle and bone loss, so it's not a true fat loss. Sounds like dehydration could also be an issue from some of the example posts I read!

What boggles my mind is how many people are willing to follow a plan based on the success of someone who is unwilling to prove their loss.

I keep thinking about a wonderful woman I knew when I was growing up. Isabelle was a beautiful woman who could sing like a professional. Isabelle was also about 4'8" tall, and probably weighed 400+ pounds. She was my neighbor's younger sister and I loved her! Everyone did! Every couple of years Isabelle would go on some kind of extreme diet and loose massive amounts of weight in a short time. I can remember on 2 occasions her loosing weight like this. I can remember my mom being appalled at her weight loss method, but never heard any of the details. One time she continued to loose, even when she started eating normal again. Isabelle had leukemia. She died less than a year later. At the time the docs said her horrible weight loss and gain was what caused it. Now, this WAS back in the 60s, so who knows. But I can't get her out of my mind....every time I read something about extreme and rapid weight loss.

The only part of your post I disagree with is the above statement. Kimkins is low carb. You eat almost nothing but lean protein - skinless chicken breast, egg whites, protein shakes, etc. That causes very strong ketosis which completely wipes out your appetite and is what makes it possible to eat so little. I did a regular low calorie (about 1,000 a day) diet a long time ago and it was pure torture because I was hungry all the time, trying to fill up on rice cakes and other lowfat carbs. It is the lowcarb aspect of Kimkins that enables people to stick to it. I was eating about 500 calories a day on Kimkins and I was never hungry.

Texas women, the best in the world.

Before I found this website I really wanted to loose weight, and I was determined to lose it, and so I was thinking of the Cambridge diet (it seems to be quite big in the UK at the moment) http://www.cambridge-diet.com/
basically, you have to go to a specially trained counsellers, and their diet consists of flavoured shakes, about 150 calories each once made. There are various programmes, but their most popular was the 3 shakes a day, and that is it. I think that works out at about 420 calories a day (all low fat and low carb) (I think their other beginner program is 2 shakes a day, plus a high protein low fat and low carb meal). At the time I thought "excellent, you lose tons of weight, are under the supervision of these counsellers (and there are a lot in the UK) the shakes have all these vitamins and minerals "(that is drilled into you), I am going to be skinny. Basically it seems to be a liquid Kimkins. Yes you loose weight, but personally I think my health is more important. These low fat low carb low everthing plans just sound to dangerous...

yeah, kimkins has a "protein shakes" plan now...

Ahh, I understand.

robin! i see you're from maryland.

i grew up in baltimore...lived there 'til i left for college at 17.

then here recently, a couple of years ago i moved to frederick...but only lasted there for about 9 months before hauling my butt back here to austin again. turns out i'm so NOT a "winter" girlie! LOL