This is the same Leader that unregistered a member when she posted about having 2.5 grams 99% cacao on a daily basis! Cacao was not allowed as it is a plant matter. But now, the Leader himself has even been considering using sugar to make ice cream. As far as I know, sugar is also plant matter and has many, many more carbs than a few grams of cocoa. Not to mention carbs in cream, eggs and milk he also plans to use for his ice cream.

It is also surprising that the Leader even considers eating ice cream. After all, this is the man that insists that food should not be eaten for entertainment. This is the man that insists that ground beef and water provides all nutrition a body needs. This is the man that holds himself up as proof that a long term diet of meat and water is perfectly healthy. This is the man that constantly berates Jimmy Moore for his “sweet addiction.”

So what prompted the change? My guess is that the Leader’s recent restrictive diet combined with a very intense workout regimen have resulted in cravings. The previous edicts of eating until full and allowing plenty of rest between exercise sessions are no longer valid. At least not for the Leader.

When challenged by a long time member that asked “Why” the answer was just:

Why not? I just want to see what my parameters are. I should have began my ZC journey with all the foods that are ZC but I didn’t. Now, I am in a neat position to see how they effect me. I weight 140.8. If I eat some ZC ice cream and go to 143, then ice cream is out — not that I would eat it very often.

Is he now admitting that he has done ZC wrong all this time? It certainly looks that way to me.

The Leader is also commenting on these new ZC rules with respect to newbies:

We often send the wrong message to newbies and lurkers evidently because the majority of folks who come here think that all we eat is meat and drink water. That’s not the right message to send either. Newbies should try the entire pallet of ZC foods (as I’ve often said) which includes eggs, cheese, cream, and all those sorts of things. If they run into problems, then they have to decrease consumption or eliminate them. That’s ALWAYS been the message from day 1.

Talk about rewriting history. Not that he needs to worry much about newbies. There might be one or two people per month that join the forum, if that. There are more people that leave than that join at this point in time. ZC ice cream is not likely to change that trend.

UPDATE

The Leader ended up using sugar after all. In one of the two batches he reportedly made. Just 1/8 of a cup so to him it was perfectly justifiable. Claiming that the sugar is just used to lower the freezing point and that the end product didn’t taste sweet. Plus that ice cream is low glycemic due to the the high fat content.

That sugar is a plant matter and not following the Leaders ZC definition (animal kingdom) apparently means nothing. One member asked for a clarification:

Help me understand properly the ice cream recipe, because I am confused. Do some people here eat sugar, even though it’s not an animal product?

The Leader responded:

No, we don’t eat sugar and No, we don’t put AS in heavy cream. Heavy cream and whole milk are ZC despite their lactose. You would have to experiment for yourself to see how your body responds to these products without adding any form of sweetener. On ZC, they should be sweet enough on their own.

With the ice cream it’s a little different because in my recipe, there is no hint of sweetness. It literally tastes like heavy cream flavored ice cream. Even in the batch with the two tablespoons of sugar, the sugar is used to lower the freezing point of the mixture so it doesn’t turn to ice and will allow the ice cream maker to churn it. However, it doesn’t affect the taste because it’s so small in relation to the entire batch.

Does this makes sense to anybody? ZC is foods from the animal kingdom until the Leader decides that plant matter is allowed as well. I’m still trying to understand why 2.5 grams of 99% cocoa was such an issue for the Leader. Enough of an issue to ban (unregister) a member.

This may be a result of the recent meet-up they had, or more likely, a result of the huge exodus of long time members from that forum. Perhaps The Leader decided that he didn’t want to be as strict and exclusive as earlier in order not to end up without any members at all.

The “ground beef only” diet being the key for “successful” zero carbers is no longer pushed. Neither is the “ideal food” pemmican. Other types of meat and even eggs are discussed. They don’t even openly frown on people taking supplements or exercising any more. Big changes, indeed!

But the core of “pure zero carb” is still there. The Leader has not changed his opinion that muscle meat from beef will provide all nutrition you need, indefinitely.

Here is a quote by The Leader:

Most people don’t know about pemmican and that’s primarily the reason why people don’t understand ZC. It is entirely based on pemmican and the way beef, fat and water sustained thousands of people for thousands of years without vegetable matter. To be ZC, one would be very wise to understand all aspects of pemmican. NBBA is a must-read to understand why we feel we get all the nutrients necessary for excellent health from muscle meat alone.

“NBBA” stands for Not By Bread Alone by The Leader’s idol Stefansson. How you can draw the conclusion that “muscle meat alone” is sufficient from that book is a mystery to me.

The Leader insists that there is one group of Inuits that eat nothing else than caribou; the Mackenzie Inuits. But that’s not what Stefansson says. From the book (page 22):

I might tell you, correctly, that the chief food of a certain group of Eskimos with whom I lived was caribou meat, with perhaps 30 per cent fish, 10 per cent seal meat, and 5 or 10 per cent made up of polar bear, rabbits, birds, and eggs.

It is true that, according to Stefansson, these Inuits ate exclusively caribou for months at a time. I think this was common for other peoples as well; the food source depending on season and supply with very little variety for long periods of time. Perhaps that is why the human body has the ability to store essential vitamins. However, the storage will not last indefinitely and would need to be replenished at some point in time.

But even during the period they ate only caribou, they didn’t limit themselves to “muscle” meat. The head was a favored part, especially the fat behind the eyes and the tongue. Kidneys were also eaten.

Further according to Stefansson, this particular group on Inuits even ate vegetable and berries. About berries, he said:

Some vegetable foods were eaten because the Mackenzie River people liked them. These were chiefly berries; and among berries chiefly the salmon berry or cloudberry

The other source The Leader uses for his argument is Stefansson’s Bellevue experiment where he claims that the two subjects ate “2 pounds sirloin per day.”

This is just plain false. They ate:

The experiment started smoothly with Andersen, who was permitted to eat in such quantity as he liked such things as he liked, provided only that they came under our definition of meat—steaks, chops, brains fried in bacon fat, boiled short-ribs, chicken, fish, liver and bacon.

Which is equivalent to 2 pounds of sirloin with regards to the proportion of fat versus lean.

We averaged about a pound and a third of lean per day and half a pound of fat (this is about like eating a two pound broiled sirloin with the fat such a steak usually has on it).

I fail to understand how this can be compared to eating “muscle meat” only. In addition, the experiment lasted for one year. Even though they were found to be in perfect health at the end on the one year, there is nothing to say that any deficiencies would not have showed up later if they had continued the same diet.

Finally, the Leader holds himself up as proof that “muscle meat only” is perfectly healthy as he has allegedly eaten muscle meat only for two years. If you want to base YOUR heath and YOUR life on this unverified “proof,” go ahead. Personally, I think some skepticism, questioning and looking at other opinions is a good thing.

A good resource is the website Satya put up: Dirty Carnivore. Satya is one of the many very knowledgeable former members of ZIOH that didn’t fully agree with the Leader. If you are considering a Zero Carb or Very Low Carb diet, check it out!

There were people that reported that they gave ZC a fair try. One person for a full 9 months, far exceeding the 6 months suggested by Charles as a period where the body is still adjusting and that progress might not start to show up until after this time.

So what results did this person have? Weight gain and feeling sick all the time.  She reportedly followed a pure ZC diet as prescribed by ZIOH.  Meat and water. No supplements.

I give her credit for trying it for so long. But, it is easy to do if you get caught up in the dogma on ZIOH and become convinced that their pure version of ZC is the perfect way to eat. When forum leaders and other members tell you to just be patient. To just give it time.

This is where I think a cult-like forum like ZIOH becomes dangerous. When you ignore your body’s reaction and trust what a self-proclaimed internet guru tells you.

How do you know that ZC is a safe diet? Long term?

To me, uneducated as I am in nutrition, I just can not wrap my mind around that eating supermarket ground beef only would have any similarity to a traditional diet of Inuits or Masai. Inuits may have eaten largely meat but a caribou is not the same as a modern cow. Also, the Inuits did eat fish, organ meat and berries. Perhaps not all the time, but when available, they did include it into their diet.

If it wasn’t necessary, why would an Inuit go through the trouble of finding and collecting cranberries when it seems so much easier (and more filling) to just grab a slab of seal meat?

These types of arguments are always met with quotes from Stefansson. He points towards one group of Inuits that he claims ate only caribou for a long period of time. However, Stefansson was not a nutritionist. There was also nobody that could question his statements as nobody was with him at the time. Why would I trust my health and life to what this one person said? Which has not been verified and which is contradictory to other sources dealing with the Inuit diet at that time?

Then we have the Bellevue experiment. Two men eating “meat” for a full year. However, note that “meat” for Stefansson included fish. And organ meat. Eggs. Not the same as a diet of ground beef only.

Then of course, we have that ZIOH guru. Charles holds himself up as proof.

He claims that he lost all his weight following a ZC diet, and that after two years of ZC he is perfectly healthy. At least the first claim is incorrect. Charles lost the majority of his weight on Atkins. Only the last pounds were taken off by ZC.

The second claim is not verified. From what I have read, Charles has had no blood work done for years. At least, I haven’t seen him mentioning it.

I also have another problem with Charles offering himself up as proof. Yes, unlike Kimmer of Kimkins he shows himself in person and can correctly claim that he is slim. However, there is nobody that can know what he eats on a daily basis. Why would I believe him when he says he eats just meat and water? I only have his word for it and, to me, what you say on the internet doesn’t carry a lot of weight. He could be eating Twinkies on a daily basis. How would I know?

He has proved to be a liar about his weight loss, so what else is he lying about?

The other forum leader, Suzanne, now claims to have been ZC for 6-7 years. That contradicts her posts on LCF where she as late as June 2008 posted about eating vegetables every day plus nuts and berries several times per week. Both can not be true. She might have been very low carb but plant matter is not an accepted food on ZC.

She can also not claim to be perfectly healthy as she is going through a number of health problems recently. Hair loss being one of them.

For you that want to try a ZC diet without being drawn into a cult-like forum like ZIOH, there is a very active challenge on ALC. Many of the posters are former ZIOH members. Some of them are still members and post on both sites.

The ALC thread has, in my opinion, a much more healthful approach to ZC. While the majority of posters largely eat meat/fish, there is no requirement to never include any vegetable matter. Or eggs. Or cheese. Individual modifications are not only allowed but encouraged. As is exercise.

Not to mention that an open discussion and questioning is allowed on ALC.

I do hope that all the members at ZIOH find a better place to hang out. That place is not healthy, in my opinion, and that doesn’t only apply to the diet.

I can understand why Zero Carb would be attractive to people with eating disorders. It has many traits that are similar; very limited food choices, very strict rules about what is allowed and what is not, recommendations such as “eat ground beef only” for 6 months, and members who report how they easily can go 24 or even 36 hours without eating and not feeling hunger. Not to mention the natural appetite suppression that comes from a protein-only diet.

This “ED recovery zone” is headed by a newly self-appointed ED specialist. A guy that never suffered from an ED, who never was very overweight in the first place, who used to work out a lot, and who lost the vast majority of his weight on lowcarb, not zero carb.

The “ED treatment” on the board took a bizarre twist the other day. A very new member who has suffered from anorexia for years and is working on her own recovery decided that is was time to intervene with another, long time, member. What compelled her to do this, I have no idea. I know that anorexia is not the same as alcoholism, but wouldn’t the same sponsor rules apply? In AA you are not allowed to give advice to anyone before you have a substantial time of your own recovery under your belt. Makes sense to me.

So, did the moderators intervene? No. On the contrary, they were applauding this new member and supporting her. Threatening to contact the long time member’s parents, the gym she goes to, and demanding daily posts with pictures of herself and the food she eats.

Medusa has all the details.

This Zero Carb forum has always frowned upon people that have not openly disclosed their real name. The admins apparently have no problem using this information, plus full name and address given when donating to the forum, to brow beat a member into doing what they want. Scary.

I do hope any new member take precautions to keep their identity private. Who knows when you would do something that displeases the admins and they decide to come after you?

There is a special category of members on the forum, support members. These are member that have also donated money to the Leader. As far as I understand, when the new “rules” came into effect, these members would be exempt from the journaling requirement. But apparently they are not exempt from banning. I received a comment from such a support member and she wants to warn others.

If the little narcissistic sanctimonious ‘leader’ took your money/site donation and banned you anyway (as he did me) please post that everywhere you possibly can in order to warn potential new members of his practices. Please people don’t give this person your money. Your donation means nothing to him unless you’re planning on drinking a quart of his blood on top of it.
 

I wonder how legal this is. To accept money for services (forum access) and then deny access without cause. There cannot be any “cause” as there are no Terms of Service to violate. 

The post Kimorexia did last week, and my post chiming in have been discussed on the Zero Carb forum and Charles submitted some comments here on my blog as well.

Charles’ comments here reveal his personality, and not in a good way in my opinion.

Yes, a cult. And that’s why you all are fat and unhealthy. Just stay over here spewing your nonsense while failing at your diets. When you decide to get serious and lose those pounds and get healthy, come see us.

And you accept comments from Jimmy, who is currently eating peanut butter ice cream and full blown carbs? Get real folks.

Hey wait a minute….Aren’t these all the people we kicked out? Of course, they don’t like us….

You’re right, I apologize for insinuating your were fat. I was more thinking of your friend Jimmy there. He is definitely fat. I didn’t mean, all of you, I should have been more clear.

However, I do think you need lives. Why would you sit around here commenting on such a horrible forum? If ZIOH is so bad, then why monitor it and obsess as you are doing? You’re sitting here picking apart stuff as if you have no life. Isn’t that a little odd to you? I mean really. This obsession needs to stop.

All of the people on ZIOH are adults and they are there by choice. I deny membership to at least 5 or 6 every single day. We’re only interested in members who are ZC and who will journal their experiences for people like you who can’t do it yourselves.

I don’t see any criticism here. Our forum rules are not something I need to apologize for. You start your own forum and you can run it how you like. I don’t go to other forums criticizing the way they do things. I don’t see where you find the time.

By the number of advertisements you have here, it’s clear that I am helping you immensely. By criticizing me, you get to have more people come and possibly make more money. I get that.

Despite that, I don’t even have a criticism for this blog of yours. I only noticed this blog because you linked to my blog. I don’t care. The more you talk bad about me and ZIOH, the more members we get. Our before and after pictures speak for themselves. We are healthy and we sport great success stories by people who have tried all other plans, yet with ours, they have success.

I have no wish to argue with you or your members here nor do I care if you continue your obsession with criticizing all that I do. I am in superb health and all of my members who have met me can vouch for that. I have nothing to hide nor anything to explain.

I’m glad I provide entertainment for you and this crew of yours.

Have a nice day.

And by the way, I found the Kimorexia thing entertaining. It’s not very accurate, but it’s cute. Enjoy!

I find it interesting that Charles assume that I am fat. And that he is using this characteristic as a derogatory attribute. There was a comment on the forum along the same lines:

They are defensive. WHO are all these ZIOH refugees who are complaining? And are they complaining perhaps, b/c they binge, cannot keep weight off, and are still trapped in the carb cycle? Seems more likely to me.

What Charles and his disciples in the Zero Carb compund totally missed is that neither Kimorexia nor I even talk about the Zero Carb Diet. We talk about forum practices that we find dispicable and demeaning. Nothing else. Whether we are fat or not, wheather we ever did ZC or not, whether we were ZIOH members or not is totally irrelevant.

It is also interesting that Charles and this member resort to “fat bashing.” Charles runs a diet forum. Granted, there are many underweight people there with eating disorders but there is a fair share of people trying to lose weight as well. Just the other day, one members was strongly reprimanded for having expressed her opinion which could be read as if she considered fat people lazy. That was not acceptable. Of course, the same rules apparently do not apply to the leader himself.

This Zero Carb forum started about a year ago after the leader and his disciples had been thrown out of Jimmy Moore’s low carb forum. The new Zero Carb forum eventually grew to over 800 members.

Many of the members arrived from Lowcarbfriends where there were several ZC threads running. Many of these members also ended up being banned from LCF as they tried to spread the word of the ZC forum in ways that violated TOS.

While the Zero Carb forum initially had open registration (donations welcomed but not required) that policy recently changed. They pruned the membership list down to less than 300 members. The reasoning behind this is not clear to me as the posts about the change are very confusing and even more contradictory.

Kimorexia did a good job of listing what is expected of members of that forum. The list is already long, but I could add a couple of more things:

• Do not use excessive spaces in your posts in your journal. Don’t question this rule, just do as you are told.
• Do not try to joke about being reprimanded by the moderators. Forum administration is a serious business and should not be taken lightly. Just do as you are told. Do not question it.
• Do not think that you are an equal and will be treated as an equal. The moderator is moderator for a reason and you are just a member. Do what the moderator tells you. Do not question it.

I could go on, but I think enough has been said about that place. Like Kimorexia, I hope the members abandon ship and start their own forum where this type of behavior is not acceptable.

Kimkins was a typical example. Very low carb, very low fat, very low calorie. You really needed to be brainwashed to manage to follow such a starvation diet for any amount of time. The “high” came from seeing the scale go down every day and being cheered on by other cult forum members. The “lows” when you were hungry and/or feeling sick were overcome by visiting the forum and reading encouragement and tips of how to ignore the starvation symptoms and persevere.

Any criticism was efficiently shut down by the cult leader herself, Heidi Diaz or Kimmer. Negativity was not conducive for weight loss, according to her. When the critisism was no longer contained to her own forum where she could control it, an “us versus them” mentality was soon developed. The cult-like nature of Kimkins was addressed in several blogs at the time. One of the best posts is on Back Across the Line, where these cult characteristics are listed:

Cult members are “focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.” The leader is a strong-willed, domineering character who rules the group with tight control. He lets it be known in subtle ways that he is “in charge” of the movement. He makes the plans, he orchestrates the movements of the group or groups (sometimes he exercises his sway over several groups). He dispatches the workers, assigns their chores, etc.

Frequently, they even begin to imitate his mannerisms in terms of voice inflection, language patterns, aggressive attitudes, etc. They become “clones” of their esteemed leader. It is not uncommon that the leader knows of weaknesses or past problems of people with his group. Thus, through subtle intimidation and fear he keeps them under his control.

“Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged,” and there can be pressure or social punishment when there is disagreement with the “boss.” Those who disagree are made to feel as though they are stupid or inept. They are brainwashed with the notion that they do not have the knowledge or experience to question the leader.

Younger people are particularly vulnerable to the leader’s “gift of gab,” and his feigned expertise. No matter how radical the leader becomes in his decisions or actions, the cult members will not criticize him. Even if there should be mild disagreement, no specific expressions are voiced. The members reason that though he may be mistaken in some of his judgments, yet the overall good he accomplishes outweighs any minor flaws.

Members are taught to “rationalize” the conduct of the leader in matters they have always “considered unethical before,” under the guise that the “end justifies the means.”

The cult leader always takes the major credit for the movement’s accomplishments. Members become psychologically dependent upon him. “What would we ever do without our leader?,” is the cult mentality.

The cult leader generates within his members “a polarized” mentality. His people evolve an “us-versus-them” mentality. Little-by-little he criticizes other groups with which his members might tend to associate, undermining confidence in them, attempting to discredit anyone who could have influence over his “flock.”

Cult members become suspicious; they imbibe the critical disposition. No one is really as “sound” as “we” are. We are an “elitist” group. And so, seeds of isolationism are sown. The movement leader discourages reading any material, examining any ideas that he does not generate. He seeks to control the inflow of knowledge relative to “his group.”

The cult leader has a clearly defined “anti-authoritarian” disposition. Within the context of the church, for instance, he would have an “anti-elder” attitude. Elders would be recipients of constant critical remarks. No cult leader would affiliate himself with a congregation having elders to whom he must be in submission. “Control” could not be maintained in such an environment.

Cult members are seen occasionally to take on a new personality. They begin to act differently. They become increasingly antagonistic to family members and long-time friends. They may even boast that, “I am not the old [name] that you used to know; I am a new person now.” And indeed they are. They have become strangers to those who knew them well. They have been transformed into the image of their leader.

Kimkins certainly operated as a cult at the time. Luckily, it didn’t last long. A diet too hard to follow, the discovery of the fraud by Heidi Diaz made the vast majority of members to abandon the forum, and the remaining group is not big enough to keep a cult atmosphere thriving.

Another diet cult, which on the surface doesn’t seem as dangerous as Kimkins, is Zero Carb.

The diet is simple. Eat meat (ground beef is the popular choice), drink water, don’t exercise and you will not only lose weight but improve your health in a multitude of different ways. No need for supplements. No need for organ meats or even a variety of meats. They ensure you that you get everything you need from supermarket ground beef.

As “proof” they show pictures of themselves. However, there is no way to verify their claims that they follow the ZC diet they prescribe. You just have to take their word for it.

The Zero Carb forum has all the characteristics of a cult. It is interesting that several ex-Kimkins dieters are members. From one cult to the next.

The ZC forum is led by a guru. He exhibits all characteristics of a narcissist, as given in this post I wrote a while back about Kimmer: The Cult of the Narcissist.

The guru sets up rules for forum participation as he sees fit, and they change over time. Initially anybody was allowed to join as a member, and were only thrown out (banned) for criticism. If you have not followed this regimen for 6 months, religiously, you can not question anything. The latest change on the forum include a registration screening process. Members just lurking, or members not posting under their (supposedly) real name are not welcome. This has pretty much become a forum “by invitation only.”

Even then, any criticism is shut down. If you are not following ZC you are not welcome on their forum. As the guru himself said it:

We’re changing the world one steak at a time. Get with us or get the hell out the way!

Whatever. It’s their forum. It’s just surprising that they choose to limit access to outside people as they all seem to want to bring their message to the masses. Of course, as a guest you can still read but it’s a tedious process as the search function is not available unless you are a member. You can just wade through so many posts before you give up to try to find out why Vit A, or C, or exercise, or .., is not required.

The latest diet rage seems to be the Zero Carb Diet. The rules are:

1. Eat only from the animal world (eggs, fish, red meat and fowl and some dairy are all animal sourced foods, i.e.: meat).
2. Eat nothing from the vegetable world whatsoever. (Very small amounts of flavorings such as garlic/chillies/spices/herbs which may be added, are not ‘food’).
3. Avoid milk and yogurt (heavy carbs – lactose), use only pure (not ‘thickened’- heavy) cream (read the label), cheese and unsalted butter.
4. Don’t cook your meat very much – just a little bit on the outside – for flavor – blood – rare.
5. Eat liver and brains only very infrequently – they are full of carbs.
6. Be sure to have plenty of fat of animal origin at each meal and eat mostly of the fat until you feel you have had enough – you can eat more lean at this point if you like – calories are not important, nor is the number of meals/day. Vegetable oils are not good food.
7. You do not need any supplements of any kind. Drink a lot of water and do not add salt to anything.

The hard core Zero carbers go even further. No eggs (they have carbs!). No dairy or cheese (carbs!). Not to mention “bolting” the food – swallow it without chewing it.

This is not supposed to be a crash diet, done for a short period of time. The Zero carbers see it as a way to eat for life. They are fully convinced that you can be fully healthy by eating supermarket meat only.

They base this conviction on the history of carnivorous peoples. The Inuits provide the main example. I do not understand how they fail to see the difference on a diet based on supermarket beef and a native carnivorous diet that included raw offal (brain and liver contain Vit. C, for example). Certain animal parts, raw, were greatly favored by carnivorous peoples. There surely was a reason for it. The same reason that I can crave broccoli. There must be something my body needs from it.

Even more alarming is that many with a history of ED (Eating Disorders) jump on the Zero Carb wagon. From one extreme to the other. While it might be good that they become unafraid of fat and calories, the recommendation to “eat fat until nauseous, then lean” doesn’t seem like it would lead to a healthy relationship to food.

What will the Zero Carbers do when weight loss stops? Cut the protein and risk protein deficiency? Cut the fat and end up with a Kimkins starvation diet? What other option is there?

Now, I don’t think that a couple of weeks with meat only is doing any harm. This is really Atkins’ induction, in the original 1972 diet. But Atkins never intended it to be done for life. He invented the carb ladder for a reason.

After all, there are other low calorie diets out there. Just look at the latest issue of Women’s World or some other women’s magazine and I can guarantee that the recommended diet is low calorie. It may not be announced as such but adding up the suggested foods end up with 1000 cals or less. For example, egg white omelet for breakfast, 3 oz chicken for lunch, 6 oz salmon for dinner plus the rest fat free or low fat. Salads (with fat free dressing of course), a slice of whole wheat bread and half a cup of brown rice will not increase the calorie count by much.

So why is the Kimkins Diet so much worse? Especially now when there supposedly is no calorie limit on it any longer? Not that the recommended 70-90 gram protein, 3 cups salad veggies, with minimal fat easily add up to more than 500-600 cals.

What I see as the main danger with the kimkins diet is not the diet in itself. It’s the cult-like atmosphere on Kimkins “support” forum. Where people are encouraged to starve themselves. Where feeling icky is applauded.

Other crazy, fad, diets might produce the same physical ill effects (and quick weight loss), but there is nothing to motivate you to keep on doing them. You just abandon them as not doable. Another failed diet attempt.

Not so with Kimkins. When struggling to stick to the diet (and who wouldn’t?) you just log on to Kimkins.con to get support for why you shouldn’t give in to your body’s demand for nutrition. Hear people saying KUTGW (keep up the good work). Look at you! You have lost so much! Keep going! Don’t be weak!

You get inspired by the success stories on the site. Big losers. Real or not, who cares? They have pictures! They look pretty and skinny in the “after” photos.

No negativity at all on the site. Just upbeat posts. Friendly challenges where you get to know people. Checking in daily to say hello and read about your friends’ overnight whooshes. How many pounds they dropped. Hoping to do the same.

To me, that is really the danger with Kimkins. Not the diet, but the website. Without the brainwashing that goes on there, nobody could stick to the diet long enough for it to do much harm. Without the forum and people posting there (even if they are mostly sockpuppets by now) there wouldn’t be a Kimkins.con.

I have great hope that Kimkins.con will soon be gone from the internet. The site was funded by members that signed up based on fraudulent weight loss claims (Kimmer’s 198 pounds) and an article in Women’s World that had fake pictures (Kimmer’s Russian bride photo). The Class Action Lawsuit may force the shut down. Or, Heidi Diaz might decide to shut it down due to lack of new members. Sockpuppets don’t bring in any money.

Is it enough? Kimmer recommends a multivitamin per day for her 500 calories starvation diet, Kimkins. Theoretically, this will provide the RDA (Recommended Daily Allowance) for all essential vitamins and minerals. Does that mean that my body gets everything it needs to function? As the energy will be taken from stored body fat and the rest will be delivered by the pill? I know for sure, that the fat soluble vitamins will not be absorbed as the Kimkins diet is practically void of fat. But what about the other vitamins and minerals in the pill?

For reasons that scientists have yet to figure out, the body processes vitamins differently when they arrive in food than in pill form – probably because foods interact with one another in a way that may help nutrient absorption. So far, nutrition specialists said, scientists working in labs can’t beat what nature does.

Even multivitamins, which typically contain the recommended daily intake of a host of nutrients, are not universally accepted by nutritionists.

Alice Lichtenstein, a professor at Tufts University’s Friedman School of Nutrition, said there is no evidence that multivitamins are hazardous – but she said there’s also no compelling proof that they do much.

The RDA, or RDI (Reference Daily Intake) as it is now called, was developed based on getting the nutrition from FOOD, not a PILL. Will my body absorb what it needs from a pill? And is the RDA enough?

The RDA was developed during World War II by Lydia J. Roberts, Hazel K. Stiebeling and Helen S. Mitchell, all part of a committee established by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in order to investigate issues of nutrition that might “affect national defense” (Nestle, 35). The committee was renamed the Food and Nutrition Board in 1941, after which they began to deliberate on a set of recommendations of a standard daily allowance for each type of nutrient. The standards would be used for nutrition recommendations for the armed forces, for civilians, and for overseas population who might need food relief. Roberts, Stiebeling, and Mitchell surveyed all available data, created a tentative set of allowances for “energy and eight nutrients”, and submitted them to experts for review (Nestle, 35). The final set of guidelines, called RDAs for Recommended Dietary Allowances, were accepted in 1941. The allowances were meant to provide superior nutrition for civilians and military personnel, so they included a “margin of safety.” Because of food rationing during the war, the food guides created by government agencies to direct citizens’ nutritional intake also took food availability into account.

I have not been able to find anything about what method they used to develop the RDA.
Surely they did not have the time to perform actual studies to see how the body responds to different vitamin and mineral levels. My guess would be that they looked at a “typical” diet of perhaps some 2,500 calories and then calculated what nutrition it would provide to use as their bench mark.

Despite the fact that RDA has proved useful, most physicians, medical practitioners, dietitians, and laypeople tend to assign too much authority to the RDA standards. Instead of using RDA as the minimal amount needed to prevent deficiency diseases, the society tends to use RDA as the maximum amount of daily nutrient intake. Chronic diseases, for example cancer, heart diseases, osteoporosis, indicated the fact that the RDA standard is not sufficient to prevent or deal with the root of chronic diseases. Studies in nutritional sciences and the medical field further show that we need a greater amount of nutrients than those recommended by RDA to provide optimal level of protection.

The RDA is constantly undergoing adjustments as new research suggests increase/decrease of a certain vitamin or mineral, mostly based on new studies where a certain vitamin or mineral is showed to protect against some disease.

But to my knowledge, there has been no long term study to see if the RDA is in fact representative of the nutrition a body needs. Especially when this nutrition is not derived from food but supplements.