Jimmy Moore's '30-In-30' Challenge

Jimmy,

WOW! 18.5 pounds in one week...now that's what I'd call instant gratification! How exciting and inspiring!

I started low-carbing it again on Monday. I'm weighing in at approximately 220 on a 5'7" frame. I'm hoping to lose at least 70 pounds. I'll reevaluate when I get to that point.

I'm seriously considering Kimkins but that $60 would buy me a nice summer outfit also so I'm going to wait another week or two and then decide. Basically, I'm following Atkins for now. But 18.5 pounds in one week is a real testimony for KIMKINS and I'm envious! :-)

Thanks for the encouragement!
Krista
 

THANKS Krista! Basically what I tell people is if Atkins is working well for you, then do Atkins. But some people begin to struggle on their current low-carb plan, so maybe trying another version will stir things up. That's what Kimkins has done for me. :)
 

Congrats to you Jimmy....

I started on Monday, and saw a 2.5 lb loss after 1 day. I, too, am curious on what your specific menu is for the day/week (I enjoyed it when you did it in the past). Are you eating any of the bread from the Frances Simun bakery? Are you eating any chocoperfection bars?

Keep it up,

Matt
 

I'm happy for you, Jimmy. Losing 18 pounds in one week is tremendous. It also sound dangerous. Are getting enough water? Wouldn't that kind of weight loss be mostly water and not fat?

Also, since Kimkins is a reduced calorie diet, do you feel hungrier than when you were on the Atkins diet?
 

I'm still drinking about a gallon of water daily, so I don't think that's a problem. Sure, most of the loss was water, but it was being stored up inside of me because of my habits got lazy. Getting back to serious low-carb has gotten me back on track again.

Just so you know, not all of the Kimkins plans (there are five of them in all) are low-calorie. I'm on K/E and can eat as much lean protein as I want. That protein and the fat therein satiates my hunger to the point that I'm actually not hungry much at all!

This is so freeing and I haven't felt this way since I was losing weight in 2004. Kimkins has been good for me regardless of how long I actually stay on it.
 

My meals right now are primarily lean protein sources as I am doing the Kimmer Experiment (K/E) version of Kimkins. If I decide to move into other Kimkins plans, then non-starchy veggies will become a part of the equation.

Jimmy, so you're saying that non-starchy veggies are NOT part of the plan you are using?!!?!!?

Are you eating anything besides lean meat, and if so, what? Will you post a typical day's menu?

How does this or any other version of Kimkins perport to satisfy all of your daily essential nutrient requirements?
 

I also don't understand why you simply never used ketosis under Atkins Induction again, either now or at your start of the 30-in-30 Challenge back in August 2006?

-David
 

HUH?! What are you talking about, David? When I started "30-In-30" back in August 2006, I DID start Atkins Induction and did fairly well with it to bring my weight down from the slight creep at that time. But once again I got to a certain point and stopped losing on Atkins.

I don't know why it stopped, even while in Atkins ketosis, but it did. That's why I'm doing something different.

Hey, if Atkins works for you and your weight is moving down, then you won't see me stand in your way. It helped me lost 180 pounds and stay there for over three years.

Now I want to see if I can get lower. Maybe I will, maybe I won't. But continuing to try to lose weight further than I have on the same plan for several years seem futile.

I'll let you know my results. Best wishes to you on your own journey!
 

David, I just noticed your previous comment about the veggies. I'm doing K/E right now which is the version of the Kimkins plan that requires you to eat lean protein sources. So basically my diet is lean meats and eggs. I don't get quite as obsessed about the fat being low, but I do keep the carbs at a bare minimum.

Remember, this is for weight loss right now. Once I get down to my goal weight in very short order, I will gladly eat more nutrient-dense meals consisting of the spinach, nuts, and other foods that will keep me healthy.

Right now, I'm shedding pounds. Like I said, it's only temporary.
 

Okay, so this K/E version (a low-fat version of the all-meat diet) is certainly very unhealthy long-term and the 600-calorie a day version is also certainly unhealthy long-term.

Are there any of the 5 versions of Kimkins that is healthy long-term?

-David
 

The other four versions--the original Kimkins diet, Boot Camp, Vegetarian option, and protein shake option--are all as nutrient-dense and balanced as any other low-carb plan. They allow a sliding scale for reintroduction of certain kinds of carbs based on where you are--weight loss, ongoing weight loss, or weight maintenance. It's all explained very clearly on the Kimkins site.
 

"HUH?! What are you talking about, David? When I started "30-In-30" back in August 2006, I DID start Atkins Induction..."

Sorry, apparently my misinterpretation of a comment response you posted elsewhere.
 

are all as nutrient-dense and balanced as any other low-carb plan.

You can't possibly get in all your nutrients from food if you are either only eating meat or eating at 600-calories a day.

I'm assuming that the "original" is the 600-calorie version.

What are the caloric restrictions on the other versions (boot camp, vegetarian and protein shake)? Are they also below Basal Metabolic Rate so as to induce metabolic starvation mode? Are they all really low-fat/low-cal plans in a new disguise? (certainly the 600-calorie plan is!...it's really low-EVERYTHING!)

I'm certainly not about to cough up $60 for web access just to evaluate seriously questionable plans that I wouldn't ever consider using.
 

Hey David,

I'm afraid you have fallen for the rumors and innuendo that have been spread about Kimkins on forums and web sites that would just assume the plan go away. I've looked at all of the Kimkins plans and NONE of them call for only 600 calories in a day.

NONE OF THEM!

The calorie restrictions that are placed on a couple of the plans are designed to speed up weight loss and then higher numbers are allowed once you reach your weight loss goal.

All of them are above the 1200-calorie level, again unlike what you may have "heard" about Kimkins. Do some people eat less calories than that? Sure, because they are satisfied on the food that they do eat.

I'm sure there will always be people who will refuse to accept this plan no matter how much it is explained, but that's okay. It's not for everyone just as Atkins is not for everyone. But this way is helping a lot of people right now, not the least of which is me.
 

"All of them are above the 1200-calorie level, again unlike what you may have "heard" about Kimkins. Do some people eat less calories than that? Sure, because they are satisfied on the food that they do eat."

Even 1200-kcal is way below Basal for most people.

And pretty much all I've ever "heard" about Kimkins is what has been posted right here to your blogs, and the 600-calorie per day thing has until now, gone unchallenged.
 

Look, David, I'm not hear to debate the merits of the Kimkins plan. If you don't want to do it, then don't. I tell people to find what works for them and do it exactly as prescribed by the creator of that plan.

If that's Atkins, Protein Power, or even Kimkins, then that's what someone should do. I think we tend to complicate things when we start being overly critical of other diets we don't know much about except what we've "heard."

A high-carb, low-fat diet I can understand why it is unhealthy based on the research that I have been reading about it. But for some, perhaps watching their calories by cutting back a bit on their fat while low-carbing is their pathway to success.

Just because nobody has refuted the 600-calorie claim at my blog doesn't mean it's true. I'm here to tell you that I've looked at all of the Kimkins plans and they do not call for that low rate of calories. NONE of them.

Again, if you don't want to do this plan, then don't do it. But it very well may be just what will change the life of that overweight or obese person out there who feels like NOTHING will work for them.

This is working for a lot of people.

THANKS again for your questions and engaging the debate of ideas, David!
 

Jimmy, the plans are all low calories. The vegetarian is no more than 1,000 cals per day, the shake plan is up to 800 cals per day, the kimkins boot camp is 500 cals per day and the women on the site usuall average about 400-750 cals per day.
 

With all due respect, Anonymous, NO they are not. I've looked at each of the plans and NONE of them call for only 400, 800, or even 1,000 calories in a day.

That's not to say that some participants don't eat that low-calorie, but the plan doesn't call for that. Please get your facts straight before you post your ignorance at my blog.
 

Hey Jimmy,
Congratulations on you success on Kimkin's. I was so impressed by your results that I decided to join Kimkin's and started today.

Not to be argumentative or anything, but I printed the plan off from Kimkin's website and have it in front of me.

(after you log in, click "Kimkin's Diet Plans")

Under the vegetarian option in blue it says, "Vegetarian products have higher carbs so a calorie limit is suggested
Aim for no more than 1000 calories per day."

Then under the "Meal Replacement Shake" option, it says to eat "Up to 800 calories."

The "Book Camp" option doesn't list a specific calorie limit, but it does tell you exactly what to eat. I added it up using fitday, and it came out to exactly 500 calories.

This is a low calorie plan (at least those three options are). I've thought about it for myself, and I'm going to go ahead and give it a shot. My attitude is this:

Under-eating may not be healthiest thing in the world, but neither is overeating...and I do that all the time! ;)

Good luck losing the rest of your 50 pounds. Thanks for your hard work and your blog. It's an inspiration to the rest of us.
 

Jimmy - they are definitely low-cal plans. You can't lose that much weight (mostly water weight at first) without drastically cutting your calories.
If people want to go that low in calories its up to them but they need to know that its definitely short on the calories.
 

I'm not saying it's NOT low-calorie, but not obsessively low like some are claiming. But there is some merit in watching calories as even Dr. Mike Eades has advocated with his intermittent fasting experiment. THANKS again for the comments everyone!
 

Under the vegetarian option in blue it says, "Vegetarian products have higher carbs so a calorie limit is suggested
Aim for no more than 1000 calories per day."

Then under the "Meal Replacement Shake" option, it says to eat "Up to 800 calories."

The "Book Camp" option doesn't list a specific calorie limit, but it does tell you exactly what to eat. I added it up using fitday, and it came out to exactly 500 calories.

Fascinating! Seems even the paying participants in Kimkins can't agree on what caloric restriction each variant of the plan calls for!

So, just how many calories does the original version say to stay under?
 

"I'm not saying it's NOT low-calorie, but not obsessively low like some are claiming."

I'd say anything under 1,000 calories per day, which is way below basal for ANY full-sized adult, even someone AT their ideal weight, is "obsessively low."
 

"I'm not saying it's NOT low-calorie, but not obsessively low like some are claiming."

500-Boot Camp
800-Meal Replacement
1000-vegetarian

This are the maximum calories permitted for these three plans. (I have not read of calorie limits on the other 2 plans.) Not sure if that qualifies as "obsessively low" or just "low", I don't really care. I just want it to work.

Regardless, it is what it is.

Hope this helps to clarify things.
 

The plan of Kimkins I am following has NO calorie restrictions.
 

"The plan of Kimkins I am following has NO calorie restrictions."

Okay, Jimmy, so using K/E, if all you are currently eating is an unlimited caloric amount of lean meat and eggs, can you quantify just how many ounces of lean meat and how many eggs you are eating in a day's time?
 

To be honest, I'm not keeping track. I just eat when I'm hungry and stop when I'm not. Plus, I'm not being STRICT on the K/E plan. I'll grab a bite of chocolate or low-carb muffin from time to time as well as using mayo and sugar-free pickle relish in my salmon salad and a small amount of low-carb bread. I'm doing it my way and it's working so far.
 

I'm on Kimkins and I don't care how low my calories are. I'm not hungry, I'm dropping weight at an average of 4 lbs a week. I have cardiac issues, am pre-diabetic, and have been diagnosed with fibromyalgia. I'm no longer in pain for the first time in 9 years, I'm comfortable with the LOW fat intake in terms of my heart, my blood pressure is dropping, and I'm soon to be off of those stupid statin drugs and beta blockers. This is the same diet many lap band physicians recommend for their patients. Not wanting to gamble with the Atkins WOE, would you just tell me, "too bad"? This is an answer to my prayers. I can eat this way for JUST 5ish months and lose the 100+ lbs that HAVE to be killing my body, then start to add veggies and fruit? I've lost 27 lbs in 30 days. If this is not for you, I wish you well. I'm set free!
 

Jimmy, I think you're doing great! I am having trouble with initial carb withdrawals (restarted yesterday) but I definitely want to make this work for me. I got past them on Atkins and I can get past them on Kimkins. Your weight loss is inspiring!
Claire :)
 

THANKS for your story, Pam! Although I don't see anything wrong with Atkins because it helped me lose 180 pounds, Kimkins has helped get me refocused.

Claire, THANK YOU for your encouragement, too. The carb withdrawals hit me VERY hard in my first week on Kimkins...much more than when I started Atkins at 410 pounds. But now I'm feeling better and the weight loss has been incredible. :)
 

That's one good thing about NutriSystem. It helped me "shake things up." 10 pounds came off fast, but the rest is kind of sticking. To date I am finishing up week 14 and have lost 12 pounds. So still not too bad overall. Today I even got into some shorts that I have NEVER been able to wear before. :)

Official weight stands at 141.6 as of my official weigh-in day last Sunday.
 

Re: calories. On NutriSystem women get 1200 calories and men get 1500. Any less and you risk starvation mode.

1-2 pounds a week is all the FAT most people can lose. Anything above that and most people are losing water and/or muscle.
 

Today is one week on Kimkins M/E. Total pounds lost 15. Hunger has vanished. Cravings have vanished.
 

Jimmy you just need to go back to eating clean and cut out the low carb products. You don't have to be so strict on the fat and calories which kimkins is all about.
Also, I heard that for every referal you send to kimkins you are paid US$15. Is this correct?
 

I respectfully disagree. Cutting out the low-carb products, whatever the heck you are talking about, is not the issue. It's quality of life while maintaining my weight and health.

I'll do what I damn well please thank you very much. Nobody is going to try to live my life for me...never have, never will. Since you haven't got the testicular fortitude to even use your name when you post, then that obviously says a lot about what and what you are.

As for my diet, I DON'T cut back on the fat and calories on my Kimkins plan as much as you would expect. You're just another hater who can't stand that I'm doing well on a plan you so despise.

Why do you care so much about what Jimmy Moore does anyway? Don't you have enough going on in your life that you should worry about your own health and well-being and not someone else's who you know absolutely nothing about?
 

Jimmy, I'm glad I stayed anonymous because your response was totally over the top.
You can eat whatever you want to. I'm glad you're doing well on the plan I was just very shocked that you kept saying it wasn't really low in calories when I know for a fact that it is.
The comment about you getting US$15 from every kimkins referral was a simple question. I have seen it posted on a low carb site.
 

Just my opinion of course, but Kimkins looks pretty scary to me. You say the version you're doing you don't count calories...have you checked to make sure you're at least getting enough of them? I've found on Atkins that if I just "eat when I'm hungry and stop when I'm not", more often than not I'll eat about 1 meal a day and I can't lose weight until I start eating at least 3. Plus, I gotta agree with Anonymous (the one you just ripped a new a-hole)about the low-carb products...you mentioned low-carb bread and low-carb muffins and chocolate (which I'm guessing ain't unsweetened bakers chocolate). I'm about 3.5 months clean from a wicked addiction to Atkins Advantage bars and sugar-free candy that were stalling me out cold (I knew better, but food addiction is a real beast). Getting back to basics: meat, eggs, fat, and lots of Induction-approved veggies...but not necessarily at Induction-level carb amounts, has got things on the move again for me. Let's face it. Low carb products are probably the main reason the low-carb surge from a few years ago died and Atkins Nutritionals went bankrupt. The vast majority of people couldn't lose while using them, gave up, and lost interest in the low-carb way of eating. Low-carb methadone food usually keeps the cravings alive for the real thing.
Well, that's just my opinion, based on about 3.5 years of posting on an Atkins Diet Support board that sort of specializes in helping people tweak their Atkins diet when they're having trouble, and LC methadone products are probably the #1 cause of "trouble" (followed closely by #2 "not eating enough".
I'm not a hater (or a pimp), and whoever Anonymous is I don't think they are either. We're just concerned fellow lowcarbers putting in our opinions ('course ya know what opinions are like, right?) ;-) If Jimmy Moore doesn't want people to see or care about what he is doing, then perhaps his blog has outlived its usefulness. But like you said, you'll do what you damn well please, and nobody'll live your life for you. So unless you invite further discussion, in the immortal words of Forrest Gump, "that's all i have to say about that".
--Nikki 240/165/155 Atkins 2.5 years
 

THANKS for your very reasoned response, Nikki! You make some excellent points and I appreciate your perspective on this issue.

CONGRATULATIONS on your amazing weight loss on the Atkins diet. I'm very proud of you and wish you continued long-term success keeping the weight off.

As for me, I make no apologies for sharing my passionate response to people who think they know what's best for me. People did it when I was on Atkins and now others are doing it again on my Kimkins plan.

I'm losing weight and enjoying livin' la vida low-carb. Isn't that what's important? Why do we beat each other up over various low-carb plans when at least we're still on the low-carb lifestyle?

That just doesn't make any sense at all. But again I appreciate your comments, Nikki! THANK YOU! :)
 

Losing weight and enjoying livin' la vida lowcarb are awesome things indeed. :-) I don't think anybody's trying to beat you up for going on Kimkins. It's just that the extremely low calories of the Kimkins plans that DO call for counting calories are worrisome, and make us wonder if the plan you're on is similar (albeit calories un-counted).
There's lots of ways to lose weight that are effective but unhealthy...lord knows most of us have tried a couple of them at some point. Anorexics lose weight and aren't hungry, fen-phen and ephedra were effective if you don't mind not having a heart that works, there was the Cabbage Soup Diet, amphetamines magically take away hunger, even Atkins 1972 with its severe restrictions on veggies was dubious...and then there's bariatric surgery which is becoming more and more popular but can cause severe physical and nutritional complications. Just because it makes you lose weight fast doesn't mean it's good for you.
You plan to lose your last 50 lbs quickly and then transition back to Atkins maintenance...well I'm glad you've got a post-Kimkins plan. :-) But have you got a plan for what happens if you stall out on Kimkins? It's a possibility, especially with your continued use of low-carb bread and muffins, and especially if you don't get enough calories. You said the weight came back on as you got sloppier with your eating habits. Sounds to me that with Kimkins you're using a bazooka to kill a housefly, which is classic food addict behavior. We addicts often want to address everything but the real problem. I lost all the way to my goal of 155 in a little over a year on "purist" Atkins (no low-carb methadone) and then I let it get away from me by bargaining with the sugar and flour dragon. I got all the way back up to nearly 180 before I started trying to put on the brakes, and only then because I'd thrown away all my pants that were bigger than a 14 and they were getting too tight. I gave up the "real" sugar and flour and managed to get myself back into the high 160's/low 170's while continuing to abuse low-carb products, where I stalled out cold until 3.5 months ago when I finally was able to kick the vast majority of the product habit. I screwed up my metabolism with the junk food, and now I've been bouncing around between about 162 and 165 for several months while my body's trying to get used to eating 2-3 meals of real food a day again instead of 1 meal, a couple of Atkins bars, and some Hershey's Sugar Free Chocolate (yeah it really DID get that bad). It's slow going and some days it's freakin' frustrating to be 7-10 lbs away from back at goal, but ultimately a stall can be helpful maintenance practice...after all, maintaining is just a really long stall, right? :-) I'm taking my licks now, I brought it on myself, and chalking this one up to experience.
Well anyhoo, I wish you nothing but health and success in your weight loss journey, whatever it may be!
--Nikki 240/164/155 Atkins 2.5 years
 

THANK YOU again for your comments, Nikki! When I was recently interviewed for an upcoming film about weight loss called INSPIRED, the director asked me point blank, "What do you say to someone who feels they can't keep their weight off over the long term?"

My response: "Just stay in the game and constantly challenge yourself towards a goal. As long as you are pursuing something, the weight cannot go up unnoticed."

And so goes my Kimkins journey right now. As I have stated before, I will forever be grateful to the late great Dr. Robert C. Atkins for teaching me through his books what livin' la vida low-carb is all about.

But it is presumptuous to think that's the only way that people, even ones who have been successful on Atkins, can continue to eat when their weight stalls for years on end.

I realize there may come a point when my weight stalls on Kimkins just as it did for 10 weeks in a row when I was on Atkins in 2004. The difference now is I know it could happen and yet I'll remain as vigilant and committed as ever.

The bottom line is I WILL reach my goal of 198 pounds and I'm bound and determined to do it eating a healthy low-carb diet just as I am right now.

THANK YOU again for your kind response and I appreciate all that you have expressed.
 

Jimmy,

The ideas of controlling protein and fat are well aligned with Dr. Atkins' program. He talked about how excess protein and fat could stall you. As a student of human nature, he also knew it would be easier for the masses to wrap their heads around just worrying about carbs first. Kimkins and Atkins don't have to be so different. Some on Kimkins are very severe and get kick-butt results too! Some (like me) are more moderate. But you know, it's really great that I could lose that fast if I wanted to temporarily reduce my fat way down. Now that, I will have to agree is not in accordance with the good doctor's teachings. But more tools in my toolbox, I say!
 

WOW...I have heard of the "haters" of Kimkins, but never have witnessed it...I started with the original site and have used K/E which is, as you say Jimmy, UNRESTRICTIVE as far as calories go. Low calorie is a by product of deep ketosis, not an aim. You can quote the site all you want, but the ORIGINAL plan is UNRESTRICTIVE in calories. Only recently did the numbers surface. Too many people demanding "guidelines" if you ask me. Counting calories is not the point. Losing weight is. This debate will go on forever, I am sure, but I wanted to say--Congrats Jimmy and it is great to have you on the site!
 

Is it low carb vs. low fat? IS NOT.
Is it low carb vs. low calories? IS NOT.
Is it low carb vs. HIGH CARB? YES, IT IS.
So, dear low carbers we are at the same page!!! Kimkins is a way to lose faster, on maintenance you go back to you low carb stuff watching now your calories. By the way, Dr. Atkins, Drs. Eades and many others already SAID IT. When you get smaller your calorie intake should be smaller (so less fats... don't you think?). Sorry to tell you If you are not doing Kimkins really, you don't know what you are talking about. I wasn't a believer either, now I AM. 22 pounds in 6 weeks and I am small!! I am 14 pounds from my lifetime goal.
 

"Is it low carb vs. low fat? IS NOT.
Is it low carb vs. low calories? IS NOT."

If you don't consider 3 of 5 defined plans that are 500, 800 and 1,000 calories respectively, then what exactly *do* you consider to be low-cal???!?!?! LOL

"So, dear low carbers we are at the same page!!! Kimkins is a...

Oh no we're not...not by a longshot!
 

This debate is getting stupid. Jimmy is doing a plan that is unrestricted in calories...hence, the plan he is on is not a low-calorie plan.

However the first thing a new member reads when they join the website is the page that defines the 5 different plans. This page clearly states that only 800 calories are allowed on the Protein shake plan and less than 1000 on the vegetarian plan. Additionally, since the "boot camp" prescribes an exact diet with no room for modifications, we calculate (if done correctly) the calories on boot camp to be around 500 a day (give or take).

So the answer to the debate of whether Kimkins is "low calorie" is over. The answer is 3 out of the 5 plans are and 2 of the 5 plans are not low calories (including the one Jimmy is on.)

So I have great news for everyone! Everybody who said Kimkins either is or is not a low calorie is absolutely correct! Give yourselves a pat on the back! ;)

So let’s get passed this and debate something more useful. I think a better question to debate would be:

“Is a TEMORARY low carb, low calorie diet really harmful?”

I used to think it would be, but after my first week on Kimkins, I feel great (after day 3) and I’ve lost weight. I’m in…at least for now.

I'd like to hear other people's opinions.
 

Obviously, I meant to write "temporary" instead of "temorary" in the above post...dang it! Just when you think you have something intelligent to say...;)
 

"Jimmy is doing a plan that is unrestricted in calories...hence, the plan he is on is not a low-calorie plan"

That depends entirely on how many calories Jimmy is currently actually consuming in a day of nutritionally unsound "only lean meats and eggs" but thus far, he's been disinclinded to share exactly how much is how much. Jimmy's basal metabolic rate is approximately 2,200 calories per day by my estimations. To get that much, eating only lean meats and eggs, he'd have to be eating 2.5 pounds of chicken AND 6 large eggs a day. The unanswered question is: is he eating that much or is he eating less and therefore below basal? Anything below basal is, by definition, a "low-calorie/starvation diet."

But my issues with Kimkins goes beyond the ultra-low caloric requirements as defined for 3 out of 5 plans and obviously practical caloric limits of the other 2 versions. It also has to do with obvious severe lack of nutrients across each and every version, be it one of the ultra-low caloric versions where you cannot possibly get in even most of your essential nutrients in a day, or a plan that calls for nothing but "lean meats and eggs" and nothing else. All of which are the very definition of nutritionally unsound.

"Is a TEMORARY low carb, low calorie diet really harmful?"

I have a better question than that: How many Kimkins enthusiasts are actually doing this "temporarily"?

Kimkins is the kind of instant gratification quick-loss malnourishment nonsense that's giving low-carb a really, really bad name.

-David
 

By the way, here's the nutritional analysis from fitday of my "2.5 pounds of chicken and 6 eggs" example above:

30% Fat [smells like a low-fat diet to me!]
1% Carbohydrate
-ZERO- Fiber
69% Protein
2167 Calories

-ZERO- Vitamin D
-ZERO- Vitamin K
-ZERO- Vitamin C

Severe deficiencies (less than 50% of RDA) in both Folate and Calcium

Moderate deficiencies in Vitamin A, Vitamin E, Thiamin, Zinc and Magnesium

Of course, that is assuming meeting Basal Metabolic Rate.

I just can't imagine eating 2.5 POUNDS of chicken (or any other combination of that much meat) PLUS 6 large eggs in a day.

So there's no specified limit of calories in this particular version...so what? Who needs a specified limit when it's quite clear that most people doing this cocamaime plan aren't going to eat anywhere near basal.
 

David,
Why do you care?

If Jimmy Moore decided to lose weight by amputating a leg, what difference does that make to you?

If it's not your thing, just don't do it?
 

That sounded harsher than I ended. I'm not being rude...just curious why you are so invested in this argument?
 

"David,
Why do you care?

If Jimmy Moore decided to lose weight by amputating a leg, what difference does that make to you?

If it's not your thing, just don't do it?

That sounded harsher than I ended. I'm not being rude...just curious why you are so invested in this argument?

I love to debate the scientific merits (or in the case of Kimkins, utter lack thereof) of nutrition.

I have found it to be a very educational tool and have learned much from the experience over the past 3 or so years.

Unfortunately, Jimmy first invites debate, then plainly states in one reply to me that he's not here to debate Kimkins and then refuses to answer virtually all of the entirely pertinent questions I have asked in an attempt to understand all the truths about the topic, but similar questions are answered *if* you are a Kimkins member. I don't think that's in the spirit of open discourse about the topic at hand.

I've met Jimmy and his wife Christine in person as we all worked closely together with Regina Wilshire at the Carbohydrate Restriction Conference in NYC in January 2006, listening to the most brilliant scientific minds in low-carb research present their findings and met several of the low-carb authors who were there to hear what the scientists had to say. As such, I consider Jimmy more than just the writer of a blog about low-carb dieting, he is a friend and I am deeply concerned both about his health as well as the reputation he's built as one of the most visible spokesmen for controlled carbohydrate nutrition.

-David
 

That makes perfect sense.

So you keep talking about the "basal" calories. If that's in the neighborhood of 2200 calories a day, then I'd say many people (since they make their fitday profiles public) don't eat that much (I know everybody's caloric requirements are different).

But here's the thing, they are still losing weight. Because Kimkins revolves around the message boards, you can actually watch (read) people over the course of their weight loss journey and see over time how they continue to lose.

So I guess my question to you is "What does it matter if they don't eat their "basal rate" of calories if they are actually losing weight? If it's affecting their metabolism, it's obviously not by much because they are still losing weight.

Thoughts?
 

I sincerely appreciate your concerns about me, David, and I don't want that to be lost in this discussion. If I haven't said it before, then THANK YOU for caring. That means a lot to me.

When I started Kimkins, it wasn't my intention to try to defend this low-carb method because all I'm doing is trying to lose those last few pounds that weren't coming off on Atkins. That's why I'm doing it.

Atkins was AWESOME for me when I weighed over 400 pounds and did a GREAT job of helping me shed the pounds down to 230 pounds in the span of one year.

But now I'm in long-term mode and I just couldn't get the scale to budge below 221. When my weight crept up to 248 a few weeks ago, that was my wake-up call to do something different.

I'm not answering your questions because I'm not personally interested in debating what I am doing. I'll leave that to others who are more invested in that.

My purpose and focus right now is to lose these 50 pounds and get down to a weight that is good for me. I'll be at 198 before long.

Again, THANK YOU for your engaging discussion here and I never want to cut off debate. Ya'll have fun with it, but that's not my motive for being on Kimkins. SEE YA!
 

So you keep talking about the "basal" calories. If that's in the neighborhood of 2200 calories a day, then I'd say many people (since they make their fitday profiles public) don't eat that much (I know everybody's caloric requirements are different).

But here's the thing, they are still losing weight. Because Kimkins revolves around the message boards, you can actually watch (read) people over the course of their weight loss journey and see over time how they continue to lose.

So I guess my question to you is "What does it matter if they don't eat their "basal rate" of calories if they are actually losing weight? If it's affecting their metabolism, it's obviously not by much because they are still losing weight.

Thoughts?"

Nowhere have I disputed that those using one of the Kimkins plans are losing weight--they are--at the moment. (But at what price?...and I'm now NOT talking about the $59.95 sign up fee here.) So do anorexics who also eat between 500 and 1,000 kcal per day. It doesn't mean that just because they are able to lose weight now and lose it very quickly that it is a healthy, nutritionally sound or long-term sustainable weightloss.

And so did I lose lots of weight over several months when I was first doing Atkins sub-basal 4 years ago, eating about 500 calories below basal. But then the weight loss stopped and I couldn't figure out why. Thankfully someone extremely knowledgeable about it, Regina Wilshire, let me know that I was doing myself a serious disservice by eating below basal. I worked my way back out of metabolic starvation mode over the next several months by upping my calories to cover the sub-basal deficit without gaining a pound and then slowly began to lose weight again. Real, sustainable/maintainable weightloss, not a quickie-fix-metabolic-starvation-fad a la Kimkins.

In addition to Atkins allowing the serious flaw of deductible sugar alcohols and glycerine carb grams, not explaining basal caloric requirements was another of the few very serious flaws in the Atkins plan. Two flaws for which I have taken responsibility for in the application of my on-going use of low-carb/controlled-carb.

Frankly, I don't care if a diet calls for a specific caloric limit (like 3 of the Kimkins plans do: 500, 800 an 1,000). Atkins doesn't call for a limit either, but neither does it call for a basal minimum. Without that guideline, I misapplied Atkins to myself by eating seriously sub-basal for several months and had to deal with the consequences of a slowed metabolism as a result. It's entirely clear that Kimkins followers are doing the same and worse, even on the two versions that don't have a specific caloric upper or lower limit while at the same time, but unlike Atkins, eating a seriously nutritionally unsound diet (only lean meats and eggs as in K/E).

Please note for clarity that when I've referred to "low-calorie/starvation diet" in reference to Kimkins or other sub-basal dieting techniques, I am not at all talking about the "feeling" of starvation or hunger, although that's the way it seems to be interpreted by others. I am well aware of the powerful appetite suppressant effects of ketosis. Rather, I am referring only to the high probablility of inducing metabolic starvation mode (a significant metabolic slowdown survival response) that eating sub-basal cause.

Basal Metabolic Rate is determined by your gender, age, height and current weight, so it's different and specific for everyone. It's the amount of calories you need every day for all baseline, involuntary functions (ie: if you didn't get out of bed). It's the amount of calories a hospital will feed you if you are in a coma so you neither gain nor lose weight having zero activity level.

Learn more about Basal Metabolic Rate here: http://health.discovery.com/tools/calculators/basal/basal.html

Kimkins is a relatively new marketing and hype phenomenon repackaging of the same old low-fat/low-cal/starvation diets (500-1,000 kcal) that became very popular in the late 60's and 70's and liquid protein fasts that followed, complete with their unsustainable "record" weightlosses and nutritional deficits. Current die hard fans of Kimkins will learn the hard way, just as the those following essentially the very same low-fat/low-cal quick-fix plans a generation ago found out.

Does the Kimkins site allow for the posting of their failures along with what appear to be short-term successes? If they are, are the dieters admonished as doctors and nutritionists who prescribed low-fat/low-cal diets that the failures are the fault of the dieter for "cheating" or not keeping their calories low enough or otherwise not sticking to the plan when in fact it is the plan that is at fault?

Stay tuned for the fall out of this gimmick and watch how it will only further harm the public's already tainted perception of the true scientific advances in healthy controlled-carbohydrate nutrition, exactly the way low-carb products did.

-David
 

I appreciate your thoughts and will keep them under advisement. This is the paragraph where you lost me.

"Basal Metabolic Rate is determined by your gender, age, height and current weight, so it's different and specific for everyone. It's the amount of calories you need every day for all baseline, involuntary functions (ie: if you didn't get out of bed). It's the amount of calories a hospital will feed you if you are in a coma so you neither gain nor lose weight having zero activity level."

What's so magical about the "basal" number? You are obviously creating a calorie deficit whether it's through basal metabolism or activity so either way the body isn't getting the energy it needs from food. How does the body distiguish between calories needed for "basal stuff" and calories needed for "activity"?
Either way, there is a deficit between what the body needs and what it gets from food.
 

"What's so magical about the "basal" number? You are obviously creating a calorie deficit whether it's through basal metabolism or activity so either way the body isn't getting the energy it needs from food. How does the body distiguish between calories needed for "basal stuff" and calories needed for "activity"?
Either way, there is a deficit between what the body needs and what it gets from food."

Yes, of course while dieting for weightloss, you need to create a moderate deficit in caloric intake to overall caloric expenditure. Assuming one does between 500-1000 calories of activity a day, dropping approximately that same 500-1000 calories off from your active metabolic rate (the total number of calories needed for both basal and daily activity) has been shown to be safe and effective for sustainable weightloss, really regardless of the macronutrient mix used. That will produce a 1 to 2 pound per week weight loss, which, as long as dietary protein intake requirements for the individual's needs are met, will be mostly body fat and not muscle wasting. Doing so does not appear to trigger a metabolic slowdown.

Basal appears to be the approximate threshold where one begins to risk the the perfectly natural survival response to a serious deficit of incoming calories. The combination of how long you remain sub-basal and how deeply sub-basal you are, determines how quickly your body will adapt in this very necessary survival response mechanism and severely slow down your metabolism, otherwise known as "metabolic starvation mode."

While I am not a scientific study (no individual is), my personal experience clearly confirmed for me the sub-basal/starvation mode effect.

-David
 

I'm wondering if there is a difference in how the body reacts in people who are actually starving and people who are obese...and nowhere close to starving. It seems like the body would know the difference.

You are a perfect example of someone who lost on a low calorie diet and then when you got closer to your goal (and actual starvation) is when it actually started to slow down. Ya know what I mean?

Plus there are so many people on the message boards at Kimkins who have been successful (though you are right, I'm sure many have dropped out). The thing I like is that you can see what they are eating everyday on their fitday (low cal) and then see it actually working.

It's so cool to watch somebody say "I reached my goal today" and then go back and see all their old posts about when they started and how they struggled.

I think your points are valid in some (and maybe most) cases, but there are too many examples of it working for me to believe it's universally the case.

Obviously every body is different or else we wouldn't all have that (hated) friend who switched from regular coke to diet and lost 36 pounds (or some other story like that)! Know what I mean?
 

"You are a perfect example of someone who lost on a low calorie diet and then when you got closer to your goal (and actual starvation) is when it actually started to slow down. Ya know what I mean?"

Yes, I did lose weight sub-basal for several months, but then seriously and frustratingly stalled out after losing 50 pounds. But my goal was and has always been to lose a total of 120 pounds. Thus far, I've slowly, healthily and maintainably lost a total of 84 pounds. My journey isn't over, but I'm not about to gamble my success thus far on some reincarnation of the low-fat/low-cal/starvation nonsense diets of years past. People lost like crazy on these diets back then too, which made them initially very popular as they were promoted in women's magazines especially with "no exercise necessary" as a catch phrase (sound familiar?). But, you've got to ask yourself: What happened to all these dieters in the long term? Were there a high percentage of long-term maintenance success stories? Frankly, I was one of those dieters who tried this nonsense no less than three times and lost over 50 pounds each time. BUT, I simply could not maintain the loss because it was all part of the same low-fat LIE. And now thousands of people who are looking for a quick-fix solution with an updated low-carb label are flocking to Kimkins and getting themselves suckered into the very same nightmare.

"Plus there are so many people on the message boards at Kimkins who have been successful (though you are right, I'm sure many have dropped out). The thing I like is that you can see what they are eating everyday on their fitday (low cal) and then see it actually working."

How long has Kimkins had a website where you can post stuff...since October 2006? What were the membership numbers then? What were the membership numbers back in April before the article hit that newstand tabloid?

It's so cool to watch somebody say "I reached my goal today" and then go back and see all their old posts about when they started and how they struggled."

It's way more cool to see someone post that they've maintained a successful weightloss for X numbers of years. Those are the real success stories.

I think your points are valid in some (and maybe most) cases, but there are too many examples of it working for me to believe it's universally the case."

It's "working" short-term. I'm talking long-term success stuff here. I want to see what the success rates are at one year three years and five years after weightloss phase is concluded. Afterall, is the goal really the weightloss itself or actual successful long-term maintenance of weightloss?

"Obviously every body is different or else we wouldn't all have that (hated) friend who switched from regular coke to diet and lost 36 pounds (or some other story like that)! Know what I mean?

Those are the lucky few whose glucose metabolism hasn't been ruined by the ingestion of the HFCS in the regular Coke. I'm not one of them.

Also, the "everyone's different" thing may work to some extent on what the best macronutrient mix is for that individual. But it doesn't mean that some people simply don't need Vitamin C, D and K, just because they've decided to do the only meat and eggs version of Kimkins. And artificially derived substances from petrochemicals (which is how most common supplements are made) are absolutely no substitute for the nutrition found in real, whole foods like leafy green veggies.

There are nutritional and metabolic truths that apply to all humans.
 

I appreciate the points you are making. You said that you jacked up your metabolism and had to fix it over a period of months. What did that entail? Just eating more? I'm still struggling with the idea that you could not lose weight eating only 500 calories a day. How long did you stall before you went looking for help? Seems like if that were possible nobody would ever starve to death.

"It's "working" short-term. I'm talking long-term success stuff here. I want to see what the success rates are at one year three years and five years after weightloss phase is concluded. Afterall, is the goal really the weightloss itself or actual successful long-term maintenance of weightloss?"

I totally agree with you here, and you are right that the website doesn't seem to be all that old, but I think the point you are making here is true of every person who has lost weight doing anything and is not limited to just Kimkins. Maintaining weight is the ultimate goal.

However, I don't yet see how the rate of weight loss or even the plan has as much to do with maintaining weight loss as the mindset of the person who is doing it.

For example, statistically winning the lottery is one of the best ways to destroy your life and many lottery winners end up broke within a very short period of time (I can't remember the exact time frame); however, it wasn't winning the lottery that made these people broke, it was what they did with what they were given.
 

"You said that you jacked up your metabolism and had to fix it over a period of months. What did that entail? Just eating more?"

I deliberately added food to my daily diet (and monitored the changes carefully in fitday) to be certain that I was covering my basal requirements. Went up about equal in both protein and fat. I added heavy cream to my morning scrambled eggs or omelets. I added a scoop of chicken salad to my typical daily chef's salad. I used more full fat salad dressing.

"I'm still struggling with the idea that you could not lose weight eating only 500 calories a day."

Oh no. I was eating 1,800 calories a day which was, at the time, 500 calories below basal of about 2,300.

"How long did you stall before you went looking for help? Seems like if that were possible nobody would ever starve to death.

I had stalled out for about 3 months. Thankfully, help found me. Her name is Regina Wilshire (weightoftheevidence.com).

"However, I don't yet see how the rate of weight loss or even the plan has as much to do with maintaining weight loss as the mindset of the person who is doing it."

In this regard, I can only speak from my own experience many years ago of having lost over 50 pounds three times very quickly on the same low-fat/low-cal plan that is now being marketed as Kimkins only not to be able to move into any semblence of maintenance. I wasn't hungry when I did these low-fat/low-cal diets either since the calories were so low, I was in ketosis and was getting the appetite suppressant effect, even if I didn't know it at the time. But almost right after losing, I would start gaining, while still eating less than I thought was a "normal" amount of food. And then I gained additional weight, approximately 25 pounds each time after gaining back all that I had lost. I believe that my metabolism had gone into such deep survival mode each time from the low-calories that I was eating that ANY additional "maintenance" level of caloric intake was going to pack on the pounds.

It's really the same problem that anorexics have. They are afraid to eat even the slightest amount of any additional food because they will gain weight. They're right. Their metabolisms are so slowed down that even way eating less than "normal", but more than what they're bodies have adapted to, will cause them to gain. It's the biggest reason why anorexia is so hard to treat. Their greatest fear of gaining weight MUST come true for them to be successfully treated.

-David
 

Thanks for your insightful remarks David. You have really given me something to think about and I appreciate it!
 

"Thanks for your insightful remarks David. You have really given me something to think about and I appreciate it!"

And that's the importance and benefit of a good debate in a nutshell!

-David
 

David,
Actually, most anorexics will lose weight after restoring their calories. An example is 5 lbs in a week. They have been starving for so long that when they get food, their metabolisms go into overdrive. It's actually very hard for them to gain weight, and this effect can last a long time. For example I was put on a 3000 calorie a day diet to gain weight after starving for many years and it took a long time. Maybe this is not true for the regular population who doesn't restrict quite as much?
I have always wondered also, and maybe you could answer this, that if starving slows down your metabolism so much, why do you see people in 3rd world countries who look like they are about to die? If their metabolisms had really slowed down, wouldn't that protect them and keep them from starving to death? Why is it that we "stall out" on fewer calories but those who are truly starving continue to lose? Like the people in concentration camps were given about 600 calories a day and had to do lots of manual labor, but they still lost?

Claire
 

"I have always wondered also, and maybe you could answer this, that if starving slows down your metabolism so much, why do you see people in 3rd world countries who look like they are about to die? If their metabolisms had really slowed down, wouldn't that protect them and keep them from starving to death? Why is it that we "stall out" on fewer calories but those who are truly starving continue to lose? Like the people in concentration camps were given about 600 calories a day and had to do lots of manual labor, but they still lost?"

My question would be: What was their starting weight? I doubt that the general populations in a concentration camp or third world country would have ever been obese to start with.

Fasting and/or sub-basal caloric intake, as I've elsewhere acknowledged, will produce certainly weightloss--for a time.

But long-term malnourishment is just that. And without the full spectrum of proper nutrients being provided, you're eventually gonna get sick and die.

I've seen chronic low-fat/low-cal dieters and vegans who look like they're about to die.

-David
 

"Actually, most anorexics will lose weight after restoring their calories. An example is 5 lbs in a week. They have been starving for so long that when they get food, their metabolisms go into overdrive. It's actually very hard for them to gain weight, and this effect can last a long time. For example I was put on a 3000 calorie a day diet to gain weight after starving for many years and it took a long time. Maybe this is not true for the regular population who doesn't restrict quite as much?"

Wouldn't that depend on how much weight an anorexic has lost in the first place? Had Karen Carpenter started eating correctly, there would be no way in hell she could have possibly lost another ounce. Again, it would all have to do with your starting point.

-David
 

I would think that maybe your body tries to protect you for a time but after so long it gives up the ghost? Or maybe, that when you go to a particular extreme (which depends on the person) that your body can't protect you and you lose anyway.

Does that make sense?

Your body definately adapts to calories/diet, heck we even adapt to low carb. I think the biggest thing people should be asking is how many calories are the kimkins maintainers maintaining on...? the couple I have seen are around 900 calories and kimmers fitday (http://www.fitday.com/webfit/publicjournals.html?Owner=Kimmer)is less and she's said to have been maintaining for 5 years.

Your body does definately have a starvation response, for me I lost my periods, got a goiter, started developing fat pads around my neck and face and was told I had CFS (chronic fatigue syndrome) and I was on 1500 calories whilst doing lots of resistance exercise. Whilst that might be good for some people I guess it was too low for me. You know what bought my periods back? It was refeeding where 1 day a week I ate more calories and carbs of all things but that only helped for so long as what I really needed is to stop and have a break.

My biggest worry about people doing kimkins is the bootcamp (although from what I hear people on kimmers usually don't eat much more duet to appetite), particulary people who don't need to go to such an extreme (if anyone does).

I mean how many stories do you hear of people doing a VLCD or PSMF type diet, losing their weight really fast and then gaining it all back plus more only to find next time its even harder to lose and it just snowballs from there... the fact that its very low carb, do you really think thats going to make that much of a difference on a 500 calorie diet? heck, maybe that just makes it even more of a shock?

Granted there are people that need to lose weight fat because they are so unhealthy that this is the lesser of two evils and no-one will operate on them. But really... how many of them do you think makes up the userbase of kimkins? I betcha the majority are all in reasonable health and don't need to go down that road they just want the quick fix... Something that we really shouldn't be teaching people...
 

"I would think that maybe your body tries to protect you for a time but after so long it gives up the ghost? Or maybe, that when you go to a particular extreme (which depends on the person) that your body can't protect you and you lose anyway.

Does that make sense?"

Sherrie, it makes perfect sense! (Except to those who've been totally duped into the Kimkins scam, of course.)

"I mean how many stories do you hear of people doing a VLCD or PSMF type diet, losing their weight really fast and then gaining it all back plus more only to find next time its even harder to lose and it just snowballs from there... the fact that its very low carb, do you really think thats going to make that much of a difference on a 500 calorie diet? heck, maybe that just makes it even more of a shock?"

Here's another one: A friend of mine did MediFast. Low-cal/low-fat, and by default low-carb. About 800 kcal a day. Was never hungry. The ONLY difference between MediFast and Kimkins Liquid Protein Diet is the fact that MediFast is/was not MARKETED as low-carb and required physician monitoring. Nutritionally IDENTICAL: Protein powder and supplemental vitamins.

Yes, he lost weight...lots of it in early 2001 after being diagnosed as a diabetic and looked great. Went from 330 to 190 in 6 months!

Guess what? He got sick. Really sick. Serious fatigue syndrome. Couldn't maintain the wieght loss. Wow, what a surprise, huh?

By early 2003 he was bigger than ever and wouldn't tell me how much he weighed, but he was certainly bigger than 350 pounds. Insulin dependent and taking a host of other meds including anti-depressants, statins, etc.

He has since had multiple failed re-starts of MediFast, tried Atkins but couldn't deal with the concept of a high fat diet when his doctor is harping low-fat at him and has also tried Nutrisystem and failed.

Would he really have been better off not doing the crash diet in the first place? I certainly think so.

-David
 

Yes it seems like such a common occurance, we all hear these stories all the time if not experiencing it ourselves which is why I don't get this at all.

A question, did your friend feel hungry when he was doing it that first time?
I know I never felt hungry (unless TOM cravings, which were severe) and I had to often purposely eat when not hungry to keep calories at 1500.

It seems to me that there is a common belief that so long as you are not hungry that it is okay to eat as little as you want over long periods of time, is hunger always a true gauge and can the satiating effects of ketosis be abused?
 

Hey Jimmy...I agree with you, reading up and doing research on Kimkins myself....most of her diet is based on the exact principles that Atkins himself came out with intially in 1972. So it's not really so far off. I had lost 45 pounds (with a long way to go) on Atkins back in 2005....then stalled for 3 months....and I didn't even cheat once! It was exhausting and frustrating. I ended up having to stop when I got pregnant, but promised myself I would start up as soon as my baby was a year and weaned off of my breastmilk. I kept that promise. I started right back on Atkins induction, and half way through decided to give Kimkins a try....I don't even miss the extra calories, and I do feel great. The weightloss has been consistant, and I don't think it's too far fetched from what Atkins originally had in mind.
 

"A question, did your friend feel hungry when he was doing it that first time?"

He said he was never hungry as he was in ketosis. Although the program was not marketed as low-carb/ketogenic, it most certainly was, and was to be administered only by a physician. Again, those being really the only differences between it and the Kimkins Liquid Protein Diet.

He'd make up shakes 2 times a day in a blender from the MediFast packet and typically diet soda! Then he'd eat a salad with little or no dressing on it for one meal, maybe including some boneless/skinless chicken.

-David
 

"Hey Jimmy...I agree with you, reading up and doing research on Kimkins myself....most of her diet is based on the exact principles that Atkins himself came out with intially in 1972. So it's not really so far off. I had lost 45 pounds (with a long way to go) on Atkins back in 2005....then stalled for 3 months....and I didn't even cheat once! It was exhausting and frustrating. I ended up having to stop when I got pregnant, but promised myself I would start up as soon as my baby was a year and weaned off of my breastmilk. I kept that promise. I started right back on Atkins induction, and half way through decided to give Kimkins a try....I don't even miss the extra calories, and I do feel great. The weightloss has been consistant, and I don't think it's too far fetched from what Atkins originally had in mind."

Why do you think you stalled out for 3 months while doing Atkins. No doubt you were consistently eating sub-basal and your system went into metabolic starvation mode. So, you've decided to invoke that same metabolic slowdown faster this time. Good luck ever trying to maintain your weightloss.

Better read Atkins 1972 again. It doesn't say to cut down on fat or calories in any way shape or form. Kimkins is all about low-fat/low-cal/metabolic starvation. Kimkins and Atkins are nutritional polar opposites.
 

Jimmy, when did you have your gastric bypass surgery?
 

What makes you think I had gastric bypass surgery? Nope, my weight loss has been all-natural--the low-carb way! :)
 

Hi Jimmy
I was wondering if you would remove this blog posting or at least put a disclaimer at the beginning. If someone were to come across this page with no other knowledge of you they would think you support Kimkins. I hope that's not the case.
Thanks
 

THANKS WackyToBeMe! If they click on that link at the top of the post, then I think there is no doubt at all I am 100% AGAINST Kimkins. THANK YOU again!
 

I am going to try the 30 in 30 starting tonight at midnight. I'll post my results every week.
 

WOO HOO!!! You can do this!!!