he CAN'T be eating that on k/e....

Hey guys, the proof is in the pudding (chocolate pudding that is). Those photos are of Jimmy and on HIS blog. According to Jimmy, he's doing K/E or Kimmer's experiment which is stricter than regular Kimkins but not quite as strict as the book camp. According to what Kimmer posted on another board about K/E the ONLY thing that is allowed is lean protein and spices. But it's not so much the ingredients of Jimmy's chocoholic "cocktail" that bother me as his attitude about food. Just look at that photo with chocolate dripping down the sides of his mouth. I am not trying to single Jimmy out, really I'm not because I have "been there" myself. But if he is going to publish a diet blog then he should set a good example in my opinion.

I was given some really good advice by a member on this message board (thank you Judy NYC if you are reading this). She told me that until I got my attitude about food right, I would be trying one diet after another or a she called it the "diet dejour." I stubbornly didn't listen to her then, but she was right. We can't just diet, pig out and then diet and then pig out and on and on. Our relationship with food (low carb or otherwise) needs to be a healthy one. If people don't understand the psychology of overeating as Judy NYC understands so well, then we will always be on a diet roller coaster and always looking for a "better" diet.

well, if he is eating that NOW as part of his k/e plan...he is totally missing the point of k/e

k/e is about getting as "bare bones" in your carbs as possible...so there is no cocoa or sugar alcohols on the plan (in fact, kimmer even gets on to people for putting davinci in their coffee and that's just liquid splenda, not even a sugar alcohol)...anyway, there's only supposed to be lean protein & eggs & the minimal fat possible to make things work (butter, mayo).

wonder if he'll get publicly "called" on this

Jimmy has posted a couple of recipes on his website since beginning Kimkins that IMO qualify as "junk food" or are at least questionable during the intitial phase of weight loss. One of the recipes features a candy bar called Choco-Perfection which was also featured on the Kimkins website. I thought Kimmer didn't believe in counting "net carbs." If so, then the total carb count for a Choco-Perfection candy bar is pretty high for a low carb diet. Here are the ingredients from the Choco-Perfection website.
http://www.lowcarbspecialties.com/choco_bars.html

The k/e part of Kimkins plan is no more than the original induction phase of Atkins diet. In fact, it may be the exact diet Dr. Atkins has lost his own weight with. If someone likes to stay on it for a couple of weeks, he should not consider himself leaving Atkins.

A lot of really odd responses in this thread.

1) Losing 18.5 lbs in one week is not necessarily just water weight. Some of it will be, but not all. Even when you use a sauna suit to lose 10-20 lbs in a day (DON'T DO IT!), even that is not ALL water.

2) You most certainly CAN lose more than 3 lbs a week of fat on a consistant basis if your program is tight. I averaged 4 lbs a week of fat loss during my program while still gaining a moderate amount of muscle during the same period.

3) Nothing wrong with treating yourself once in a while. Even the occasional binge can be a good thing. I firmly and strictly adhere to the once a week free day concept, where I eat as much of anything and everything I want one day a week. Not only does it not impede my progress, careful journalling of every aspect of my program has shown time and time again that I'm more likely to have a bad week as far as my weight/tape measure/bodyfat numbers go when I do NOT take that freeday. 6 crazy strict days a week with one treat day more than makes up for the half-assed everyday approach that most people take. You hear the buzzword in fitness "muscle confusion", well I think of the free day as diet confusion. You body has no idea what's going on, so it cannot attenuate to the plan, and a plateau is virtually impossible. Failure to do this, IMO, is the main reason most people fail. They binge anyway, but it's not planned, so they feel guilty about it. Then the end up quitting. If it's actually planned, it's not cheating. It makes avaoiding the cheats all week super easy, because you are not swearing off of your favorite foods forever, you are simply postponing the treat until the specified time.

4) Cocoa is a good antioxidant, and some studies have even shown it to help with fat loss. A little sugar free real cocoa based treat certainly isn't going to hurt, and it might even help. He's only getting 2-3g of carbs from it anyway.

5) I don't read Jimmy's blog much, but I never miss his Podcast. Sure, his "maintenance" weight had a range to it, but he still kept his initial weight loss off for the most part. When you've lost over 200 lbs, a range of 20 or so lbs is really nothing. When you just maintain, without an actual goal anymore, it's natural to drift.

6) Looking to kick start another round of fat loss doesn't at all negate the results of the original one. What worked before worked well for the goals he had at the time. At first he just wanted to not die from obesity. Then, he wanted to actually be in the "normal" weight range. Now his goals are more strict. Accordingly, so is his program. New goals are healthy, and IMO, are much more important than just "maintaining". Keeps you from drifting.

I have to be honest with you guys. Personally, I've chatted with Jimmy on a couple of occasions and he's a nice enough guy; however, he embellishes his numbers just like most folks who are in denial about their true weight and eating habits. Now, I believe that Jimmy lost close to 20lbs in one week just as much as I believe that he is at 9% body fat, which is what he told me through his blog back in December 2006. Judging by the pixs his posted of his "loose skin", I can confidently tell you that he has never seen single digit BF% numbers because I've been through the saggy belly phase at 20% +, and yes you have "man-boobs" and you have the hanging belly. But, that's because of the fat that's still there! Pinch the back of your hand. That's how thick your skin is. Also, it is well understood that your body weight fluctuates up to 5lbs on a daily basis (mainly because of bodily fluid fluctuations). I know this because I've read the literature, and I weigh myself everyday, and have been doing this for more than two years. So, I guess I'm a little disappointed that he has gone the route of the fad dieter, who will yo-yo diet from one diet to the other. It's funny that we are going to start seeing more folks jumping from one LC plan to the next; no, it's sad really because so much confusion about weight loss abounds ... I hear that a woman has lost 150lbs in less than a year and is coming out with a website for her "Chicken Soup Diet" . . .

didn't he say his bf% was 11%? that's the number I remember...

from reading all the negative comments here about Jimmy and Kimkins, I think the people in denial are those of you who reject the role of calories in a low carb diet. As far as I am concerned that is what a diet like Kimkins addresses head on. Yeah, maybe she goes too far. But maybe all this talk about "starvation mode" is just a myth-nobody's proven anything different. Atkins mearly tiptoed around the calorie thing, and bascially promised you could eat all you want, which is why most Atkins dieters are still overweight, after years and years on the plan (myself included).

I say congratulations to Jimmy for finally admiting calories do count. I do wonder about his junk food blogging tho...

What bothers me most about Kimkins is that it is full of contradictions. I admit that Atkins was too after he started allowing all the franken foods, but I read that Kimkins dismisses the net carb theory as bunk and then she advertized a candy bar on her website that is full of carbs except when you subtract the fiber to get the net carbs. Well, which is it?

I've read Jimmy's blog on a few occasions, but got turned off by it. He's got so many ads on the site it's ridiculous (trust me, it doesn't cost that much if anything to run a blog). While I commend his success on LC and his enthusiasm, I'm not crazy about his encouragement of Frankenfoods and his writing style reads like he's trying to sell you LC Amway.

That's another thing that bothers me about Kimkins. At first Kimmer said she needed money because she "spent 6 hrs. a day" on her blog (now its a website, but at first it was a blog). At least Jimmy hasn't asked for money or at least I don't think he has except for his book.

it's always been a website with a membership fee from the time it launched last june...i guess she must have mistyped somewhere if she used "blog" at first.

as for jimmy and all his ads, i think most people are under the impression that he is getting money from these sponsors just to advertise for them on his site. and he is.

but it's not as simple as "here's a set price to buy advertising space on your site"...it's an advertising affiliate relationship where he makes money by people "clicking" on the different banners to order stuff. so he's motivated to promote the different sites and products (that are always hyperlinked to the sites to purchase) because the more people purchase these products through him, the more money he makes in a commission.

for example, the kimkins site pays out something like a 25% commission for advertisers....so out of every $60 membership that kimmer gets from someone who goes to her via jimmy's site, jimmy makes $15. in the last year, thousands have signed up for her site through jimmy's extensive coverage...it's a win/win for both...all in the name of internet commerce.

jimmy seems like a really nice guy, i like him and have almost always enjoyed reading his blog...it's just that with all that advertising affiliate info in mind, it does help me to see how "less biased" he may be in his promotion of things. it literally does pay for him to gush as much as he does about various products and sites.

No, he has his e-book, that's all. But Kimmer ... man, it's true what P.T. Barnum said.

No, but its quite a different situation. My woe is like Kimkins, but I don't pay for her site because I have the information and understand it. But anyone who read her old forum on the other site could see she put a LOT of time into answering people's questions, looking at thier fitday logs and advising them, and simply encouraging people and explaining things over and over. It looked very time intensive. As I understand it, if you pay for her site now, you will get the same thing. As many people as are signing up, shes got to either be working her ass off or have several people there just responding to personal emails or IMs or whatever, I'd think, because most people just don't take the time to figure things out themselves.

as has been explained many times, what you get when you pay for membership to kimkins dot com is the support. You pay for access to the forums, and even direct access to Kim , if that's what you want. I can't understand why that would bother anyone.