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 The previous edicts of eating until full and allowing plenty of rest between exercise sessions are no longer valid.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.

Of the three studies reviewed, one found no significant association between chocolate consumption and risk of stroke. But another found that

the stroke rate was 22 percent lower in people who ate chocolate once a week

and a third reported that

death from stroke was 46 percent lower in those who ate 50 grams of chocolate once a week.

They speculate that the health benefits may come from antioxidants called flavonoids that are present in chocolate. Antioxidants are thought to prevent cell damage.

Of course, the article then goes on to give the standard warnings.

“Caution should be taken not to promote chocolate as a health food even though it is fine in moderation.”

“Chocolate is a major source of saturated fat, which raises bad cholesterol and boosts heart disease risk”

Oh well, what can you expect?

They also point out that only dark chocolate would be beneficial even though it’s not clear if this statement comes from the studies or not.

Unrelated to the reviewed studies, there are apparently other studies that indicate that

even a little chocolate can help reduce blood pressure and increase blood flow through the arteries

That sounds like good news to me. I hope we get to hear more from these “other” not referenced studies.

So, how to incorporate chocolate into a lowcarb diet? A couple of squares of dark chocolate like Lindt’s 70% bar that have 6 g carbs do not derail my diet despite containing a small amount of sugar.

An even better idea is to use cocoa nibs; crushed cacao beans. A friend of mine (2big4mysize – don’t let the name fool you; she has been at goal weight for many years now) gave me the tip to brew “tea” from them.

She puts them in cold water in a percolator. Runs it twice as the first time will just give a tea-colored liquid but the second time will result in a nice, chocolate colored drink. She can then keep on adding more water to the pot to stretch the nibs even further.

I don’t have a percolator but I intend to try this with just heating the water with the nibs; possibly more than once. I just need to buy the nibs first.

The nutrition facts for 1 ounce of cacao nibs are: 130 calories (110 from fat), 12 g fat, 10 g carbohydrate (9 fiber), 4 g protein.

This chocolate tea must be very similar to what the Aztecs drank. At least the descriptions I have read suggest that it would have been prepared in a similar way. I also don’t recall any mention of them sweetening the drink.

I did get some new tidbits from the book. Like supplementing with leucine (an amino acid) and melatonin. I tried melatonin way back for sleep problems but as it didn’t help, I stopped. The Eades, however, is saying that lack of melatonin is not beneficial for fat loss, so I might start up again.

As with regards to the cause of the middle-age middle gain, there were no big surprises. Hormones. That is pretty obvious as the vast majority of people my age (50+) have problems with the middle expanding, despite eating sensibly and exercising. The 6-week cure supposedly helps to get a flat stomach back.

The cure consists of three 2-week steps.

The first step includes a liver detox phase where all substances causing the liver to work hard are to be avoided. This includes alcohol, caffeine and any unnecessary medications. The diet during these two weeks consist of 3 protein shakes per day and one LC meal with very limited vegetables.

Two things about this surprises me. First that Splenda is allowed. To me, Splenda is a chemical and while it hasn’t proved to be detrimental to the body, I don’t think it’s a good think to use when you are trying to do a detox. However, there are protein powders out there with Stevia, so perhaps that is a viable alternative.

There are also rumors in the Zero Carb community that this book promotes a “meat-only” diet. It doesn’t. There are vegetables and even berries with every meal, although in very limited quantities.

Week 3-4 are lowcarb meals, again with very limited quantities of non-starchy vegetables and berries. Alcohol and caffeine can be reintroduced.

Week 5-6 looks like a maintenance diet to me.

When it comes to exercise, they recommend only 30 minutes of weight training per week. Plus a simple ab exercise that can be done anywhere at any time.

The Eades are sharing their own experience with their middle-age middle gain and I can identify with Mary Eades. I also did not have any weight problem until I entered peri-menopause. What is disappointing though is that they say that Mary was not successful with the 6-week cure only until she got her hormones adjusted but they don’t go into detail about any of the hormone theraphy. Personally, I don’t know if it makes sense to feed your body hormones to stay at a perpetual 35 year old level for life. But then, I’m not a doctor and they are.

I have approached my middle gain differently. I maintain a relatively flat stomach by regular exercise, and it’s not enough with just 30 minutes per week. I need 30 minutes 4 or 5 times per week at the minimum. No cardio. Heavy weights. I have proven over and over again that, for me, this is the only thing that makes any difference to my “muffintop.” I don’t fully understand why. Hormones? I wish they had addressed this fact as I’m sure I am not unique.

While my review may not sound all that positive, I do recommend the book. It’s a good read and the recipes alone are worth the money. The cure is probably also a good plan for someone that quickly needs to shed some pounds and likes to follow a strict routine with given meal suggestions.

Finally, I wonder what the Eades’ target audience is. The book is not directed towards people that have a lot of weight to lose (even though it might work well as a starting point for transition into Protein Power). The book seems more directed towards people that have not been overly overweight and now find themselves with 20-30 stubborn pounds extra. If this means that lowcarb will be sold to a larger audience, I’m all for it. In my opinion, we can all benefit from lowcarb becoming more mainstream.

I wish the Eades the best of luck and great success with this book. They do a lot of free work on their blog for the lowcarb community.

What is a healthy diet? The answer will vary depending on who you ask. Everything from the food pyramid with a “balanced” diet from all food groups, to the calorie counting Weight Watchers to the carb limited Low Carb diet. All of these groups have their own definition of what “healthy” is.

I think it’s easier to agree on what unhealthy is. Very few would disagree that fried foods (carbs + fat) or desserts/donuts/cakes (carbs + fat) are not the best food choice. But to actually agree on what we should eat is much more difficult.

We have the Food Pyramiders that insist that we have to eat from all food groups as an “unbalanced” diet is bad. They advocate a lot of fruit, vegetables and “good” grains (= high in fiber) and a small amount of “healthy” fats (= vegetable fats). Meat should be served in small portions and chicken is preferred over beef and pork due to the lower fat content.

While excessive use of sugar is not encouraged, the emphasis for low fat is more important. We can see their influence on the food industry on a daily basis. Fat free or low fat everything. Yogurt where the fat has been replaced by sugar and the end result is higher calories than plain, full fat yogurt. Or, fat free cheese that has no resemblance to the original product any more. Not to mention the oxymoron of low fat margarine.

The minimal amount of fat allowed should be “good” fats; olive oil, other vegetable oils and fish oils. Butter and lard are shunned citing the high saturated fat content. This despite that nobody has actually shown that saturated fats are bad for us. All studies looked at saturated fats with carbs, and then just blaming the fats without even considering the carbs. This fact has not yet been acknowledged by this group.

For weight loss, the Food Pyramiders recommend portion control and exercise. It’s all about calories in and calories out. We can see how well this has worked by just looking around us. This has been the mantra for the last 30 years and people have just gotten heavier.

Then we have the Lowcarbers. For many of them, anything and everything is allowed as long as it has a low carbohydrate count. Fat is not limited, nor the type of fat. Any type of meat is allowed as is low glycemic vegetables.

Many that start out on a low carb diet initially are looking for low carb versions of high carb foods. Enter Frankenfoods.  The label Frankenfood is typically given to a food item which is trying to emulate a high-carb original by replacing carbs by some chemical and/or fiber. Artificial sweeteners such as sugar alcohols is a typical example. Sugar alcohols have theoretically very low carb count and are used to sweeten coffee and make lowcarb desserts.

The food industry has responded here as well, even though there are less low carb products now than just a few years ago. I think many of them disappeared as no matter what chemical conoction they used, they just didn’t manage to make them taste good.

So what is a healthy diet for me? Now eating low carb and maintaining my weight loss for 5 years? Even though I don’t always adhere to it 100%, I try to stay with the basics; meat, fish, vegetables. No calorie counting. No limit on fats, but I don’t add any either. The only dairy I eat is hard cheese and the only grain is rye crisp bread. These last two are not good for weight loss for many people, me included, but I can get away with it in maintenance.

I don’t like processed foods. If it has a list of 30 ingredients where I only recognize two or three, it is not something I want to put in my body. I also find that it doesn’t taste anywhere near as good as home made foods.

I don’t drink diet soda or other artificially sweetened drinks. I do use splenda, davinci or stevia on occasion. Perhaps once per month at the most. It’s not because I don’t have a sweet tooth. Or, rather had a sweet tooth. I lost it after lowcarbing for some time. I used to have a serious Snicker’s bar habit. Now, fruits and berries taste sweet enough for me without any artificial addition. Diet soda is sickening sweet. I had a taste of ketchup yesterday night for the first time in years, and that was much, much sweeter than how I remember it.

If a food is sugar free, carb free and/or fat free, has no nutritional value and only contain chemicals, what would be the purpose for me to eat/drink it? For me, food implies that it will provide nutrition for my body.

But that’s my personal preference. I would never berate anybody for using artificial sweeteners or drinking diet soda. If that helps them to stay on the diet and to lose weight, more power to them. I would however suggest that if weight loss comes to a halt, it might be a good idea to limit the use of these before abandoning the diet altogether.

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.

So who wouldn’t lose weight eating just 500 calories? Why would you need to pay for expensive HCG injections when the calorie limitation will cause you to lose just as much weight in itself?

The HCG proponents (sock puppets) share their wisdom. The tiny HCG amount supposedly enables you to draw from your fat stores, and the HCG makes you not being hungry.

How funny then that the Kimkins starvation diet produced the same results, without the HCG. Kimmer suggested 500 calories or less. Lean protein, just as the HCG protocol does. People following Kimkins did lose a huge amount of weight, quickly. But they also suffered health complications due to it.

There is no reason to think that HCG would work any different, in my opinion. The dieters starting out on Kimkins didn’t feel hunger initially either. Ketosis does that to you.

Here is a study that shows no difference in weight loss or hunger with or without the HCG:

Our investigation was designed to retest the hypothesis of the efficacy of human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) on weight reduction in obese women in a clinic setting. We sought to duplicate the Asher-Harper study (1973) which had found that the combination of 500 cal diet and HCG had a statistically significant benefit over the diet and placebo combination as evidenced by greater weight loss and decrease in hunger. Fifty-one women between the ages of 18 and 60 participated in our 32-day prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of HCG versus placebo. Each patient was given the same diet (the one prescribed in the Asher-Harper study), was weighed daily Monday through Saturday and was counseled by one of the investigators who administered the injections. Laboratory studies were performed at the time of initial physical examinations and at the end of the study. Twenty of 25 in the HCG and 21 of 26 patients in the placebo groups completed 28 injections. There was no statistically significant difference in the means of the two groups in number of injections received, weight loss, percent of weight loss, hip and waist circumference, weight loss per injections, or in hunger ratings. HCG does not appear to enhance the effectiveness of a rigidly imposed regimen for weight reduction.

[Am J Clin Nutr. 1976 Sep;29(9):940-8. Ineffectiveness of human chorionic gonadotropin in weight reduction: a double-blind study. Stein MR, Julis RE, Peck CC, Hinshaw W, Sawicki JE, Deller JJ Jr.]

Getting calories from body fat doesn’t mean that you get ALL nutrition your body needs. The body fat doesn’t contain vitamins or essential fatty acids. And don’t fool yourself that a vitamin pill will provide what should be gotten from food.

Coincidentally, many Kimkins dieters complained about “excessive” hunger around week 4 – 5. The HCG protocol is following the 500 calorie diet for 3 weeks, when food is added.

But how many of the HCG dieters stop at 3 weeks? Perhaps they, just as the Kimkins dieters, decide to fight the hunger by filling up on non-calorie food such as broth and diet soda? After all, they all want to get to goal as quickly as possible.

And how many of the HCG dieters regain the weight like most of the Kimkins dieters did? A 500 calorie diet teaches you nothing about how to eat to maintain weight loss.

HCG is just another quick fix, in my opinion. A magic pill for a desperate dieter that wants to find an easy way to get the weight off. And of course, HCG is a big money maker for the companies selling it. They most likely use sockpuppets to help promote the product. As with other fad products, support threads on diet boards are populated by people new to the board, that post on that thread only, that have “fantastic success” with the product, and encourage other board members to buy it.

TIPPING THE SCALES TO HEALTH

is now open!

The online world has a wonderful new resource
for desperate dieters and
anybody else who is determined to make health a priority in 2009.

Join old friends and new as we kick the New Year off
with a renewed dedication to health and weight loss!

Tufts study compared women’s cognition on low-carb and reduced-calorie diets

MEDFORD/SOMERVILLE, Mass. — A new study from the psychology department at Tufts University shows that when dieters eliminate carbohydrates from their meals, they performed more poorly on memory-based tasks than when they reduce calories, but maintain carbohydrates. When carbohydrates were reintroduced, cognition skills returned to normal.

“This study demonstrates that the food you eat can have an immediate impact on cognitive behavior,” explains Holly A. Taylor, professor of psychology at Tufts and corresponding author of the study. “The popular low-carb, no-carb diets have the strongest potential for negative impact on thinking and cognition.”

Taylor collaborated with Professor Robin Kanarek, former undergraduate Kara Watts and research associate Kristen D’Anci. The study, “Low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets. Effects on cognition and mood,” appears in the February 2009 edition of the journal “Appetite.”

While the brain uses glucose as its primary fuel, it has no way of storing it. Rather, the body breaks down carbohydrates into glucose, which is carried to the brain through the blood stream and used immediately by nerve cells for energy. Reduced carbohydrate intake
should thus reduce the brain’s source of energy. Therefore, researchers hypothesized that diets low in carbohydrates would affect cognitive skills.

Study participants included 19 women ages 22 to 55 who were allowed to select the diet plan they preferred — either a low-carbohydrate diet or a low-calorie, macronutrient balanced diet recommended by the American Dietetic Association. Nine women chose a low-carbohydrate diet and 10 selected the low-calorie diet.

“Although the study had a modest sample size, the results showed a clear difference in cognitive performance as a function of diet,” says Taylor.

The 19 dieters completed five testing sessions that assessed cognitive skills, including attention, long-term and short-term memory, and visual attention, and spatial memory. The first session was held before participants began their diets, the next two sessions occurred during the first week of the diet, which corresponded to the week when low-carb dieters eliminated carbohydrates. The final two sessions occurred in week two and week three of the diets, after carbohydrates had been reintroduced for those on the low-carb diet.

“The data suggest that after a week of severe carbohydrate restriction, memory performance, particularly on difficult tasks, is impaired,” Taylor explains.

Low-carb dieters showed a gradual decrease on the memory-related tasks compared with the low-calorie dieters. Reaction time for those on the low-carb diet was slower and their visuospatial memory was not as good as those on the low-calorie diet. However, low-carb dieters actually responded better than low-calorie dieters during the attention vigilance
task. Researchers note that past studies have shown that diets high in protein or fat can improve a person’s attention in the short-term, which is consistent with the results in this study.

Participants were also asked about their hunger levels and mood during each session. The hunger-rating did not vary between participants on a low-carb diet and those on a low-calorie diet. The only mood difference between dieters was confusion, which was higher for low-calorie dieters during the middle of the study.

“Although this study only tracked dieting participants for three weeks, the data suggest that diets can affect more than just weight,” says Taylor. “The brain needs glucose for energy and diets low in carbohydrates can be detrimental to learning, memory and thinking.”

Another study where a faulty hypothesis is “confirmed.” What does the study actually say?

The LC participants was told to eat 0 carbohydrates during week 1, and that’s when the “cognitive impairment” was recorded. Why 0 carbs? I know of no lowcarb diet that recommends such a low carb intake, even during an induction phase.  And hadn’t they heard about “induction flu?” The test was done at a time when the body was switching over from burning glucose to burning fat and many people feel slighlty sick during this period.

I am convinced that if the test had been done at a later stage, no “impairment” would have been found. And, actually, it wasn’t. The test was repeated at week 2 and 3 after the LC group had “added back carbs.” So how much carbohydrate did they add back? 5-8 grams in week 2, and another 5-8 in week3. They were still below Atkins’ induction levels! And that very small amount of carbs eliminated the “cognitive impairment” recorded in week 1.

Perhaps they should have tested in week 2 and 3 without adding any carbs back. Or even better, started out with a higher level of carbs as recommended by any lowcarb diet. What would the results have been then? Would any “impairment” have been detected?

But of course, any impartial evaluation was not the purpose of the study. They just wanted to show that LC diets are bad for you.

For instance, they conclude:

Performance on the reverse digit span was significantly worse for participants in the low-carbohydrate condition after 1 week on the diets relative to the ADA diet (mean number correct + SEM). Performance at other time points did not vary as a function of diet.

“Performance at other time points did not vary as a function of diet?” That’s not exactly true. The LC dieters showed a better performance than the ADA dieters in week 3, at the time limited to 10-16 grams of carbs per day.

Or:

……..suggests that the two diet groups reported similar confusion rates for the 48-h and 3-week test sessions, but that ADA dieters reported higher confusion for the 1-week and 2-week sessions

The majority of the tests showed no difference between the groups.

And this “study” proves that low carb diets cause “‘cognitive impairment?” I question the cognitive ability of the researchers!

So does Kimorexia: Benefits of cigarette smoking

So what do the Kimkins survivors have to say about the diet and the founder, Heidi Diaz?

A few snippets from Kimkins Survivors:

I began to feel more tired, more worn out then ever. . . I was told this was normal. I wondered when my legs began cramping until I couldn’t even walk or move hardly at all. . . but again this was normal. When I began getting heart palpitations and a serious choking feeling, I began to get worried that something was seriously wrong.

I stayed on the plan for 2 months. After a few weeks, my emotions went flat. I didn’t feel happy, sad, anything. It was really bad. I stopped the plan as I felt I was choosing between being fat or being clinically depressed. After about 2 weeks, my hair began falling out by the hands full.

I was dizzy and my life became sedentary due to the lack of food. My hair also started to fall out.

People go from “strict” to “even stricter” when they are highly encouraged to go as low in calories as possible…many of the “big” losers hang out around 300-500 calories daily. Also, because the plans don’t have much in the way of fiber to “push things through”…it’s encouraged to take laxatives daily. The owner of the site, Kimmer, even goes as far as to say that people shouldn’t be afraid to do this since recent studies show that they’re perfectly safe and not addictive after all. (omg)

The weight loss made it easy to ignore the dizziness, nausea, and exhaustion. I brushed off the concerns of friends and family about the amount of food I was eating and for my health. I had read many accounts of other members experiencing the same side effects that I was having and the responses explaining them away as normal, signs they were doing the diet correctly.

In no time at all, I became weak, fainting, angry, shakey, dizzy. My hair fell out. I was still overweight but was sick as hell. I stopped low carb all together. I have been seeing Drs ever since with complications with blood sugar and kidneys ect…

Within 15 minutes of my ER admission, I was rapidly being set up to check for a stroke or a brain tumor. I was so sick and I simply couldnt believe this was happening. At NO time did I suspect the KK diet. I still feel so stupid. MRI’s, Neurologists, CAT scans, IV medication to try to stop the spinning. 5 days of laying on my side with a wet towel over my eyes, they finally got the vertigo under control enough that I could walk slowly. They did find my electrolytes were all out of whack and my liver enzymes a little elevated….

While I did lose weight, I also began to experience significant hair loss, nausea, bouts of dizziness and was freezing all the time.

…some days my calorie intake was lower then 500 calories. My hair thinned out too…but I am older and thought that was due to age, dizzyness or light headed sometimes too. I lost fast, lost alot, and gained it back just as fast too.

I can only hope that some day I’ll find my metabolism again.

I joined in July hoping to put my low carb lifestyle back on the right track. All I accomplished was further derailment. I got off the train when the dizzy spells crept up on me. One call to the Dr. and he said STOP! Healthy lower carb is ok, but this isn’t healthy. This is disordered eating.

I am losing hair in clumps, awful joint pains and dizzy/nauseous frequently.

I was one of those who kimmer told to take a full dose (laxatives) the first day and then take 1/2 dose everyday after.

I have lost tons of weight. But guess what…at a price. I went to the DR not feeling well. My blood levels are all off . My thyroid is shot . Know what the DR asked me…..She said..you are not starving yourself are you? I have such bad blood work that I need to have some injections to fix it..such as Vit . I also have to have scans to see if my thryiod can even be saved. This all got started because I was having dizzy spells and bad pain in my bones.

My hair was falling out, I couldn’t potty, I couldn’t stay awake, I had no energy, I felt waves of nausea and dizziness every time I changed positions…and worst of all, I was becoming completely obsessed b/c I was trying to keep up with everything on there–you know–low, low calories, very small portions, etc.

…..losing handfuls of hair, having heart palpitations, a strange tingling down my left arm, a total loss of energy, I went and got blood test because I had lost my short term memory, I could not remember my sons birthday even and it was scary, I was suffering from insomnia and all kinds of different things. When I got my blood test back, everything was screwed up, all my female hormones, it put me into early menopause, I am 37 years old, my human growth hormone was at the age of a 97 yr old woman…

These testimonials for the Kimkins Diet are just from the first few pages on the Survivor blog. There are a lot more. Over 100 “survivors” have shared their experiences.

Who in their right mind would try the Kimkins Diet after reading these?

While it is possible to lose weight without exercise it might not be all that healthy. Especially not if the weight loss is achieved by starvation level of calories. There are “Kimkins Survivors” that can testify to that.

Kimmer justifies her recommendation by referencing calorie calculators to point out how little we burn by exercising.

I can agree that calories burned during light or moderate exercise is not going to make much of a difference. This is also commonly repeated on diet boards where they typically say that weight loss is 90% diet and 10% exercise.

Gary Taubes (Good Calories, Bad Calories) is often incorrectly quoted as saying that exercise has no effect on weight loss. That’s not really what he said. Gary Taubes said that there are no studies that support that exercise makes any difference. But what subjects would the studies have been made on? Morbidly obese people on a weight loss program, I’m sure. So, to me, it is more correct to say that exercise does not make a difference for the weight loss of morbidly obese people. That doesn’t mean that the same is necessarily true for people closer to their goal weight.

Kimmer wouldn’t know as I doubt she has ever been anywhere near goal weight. She doesn’t know anything about the challenge to take off the remaining 10 pounds. This is where I think exercise makes a huge impact.

Speaking from my own, anecdotal, experience, exercise makes all the difference in the world. The scale wouldn’t budge at all until I added exercise. Granted, I didn’t follow a starvation diet. I do eat lowcarb but without any restriction of the amount of food I eat.

All slim people I know at my age are exercisers. Every single one of them. Exercise is also pointed out as an important factor for the maintainers reporting to the National Weight Loss Registry. To keep the weight off, they had to exercise.

So should you exercise or diet? In my opinion, both. Perhaps exercise is not required, or even practical, when starting out but for reaching goal it will be necessary. For staying at goal, even more so.