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 Yogurt where the fat has been replaced by sugar and the end result is higher calories than plain, full fat yogurt.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.

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!

To my understanding, the diet was never intended to include a maintenance plan. It was to be used as a crash diet and as the vast majority of people couldn’t stick to the diet all the way to goal, a maintenance plan was never needed.

For sure, Heidi Diaz never needed a maintenance plan herself. I doubt that the “thousands of people” she has “helped” on the boards and via email during “more than 10 years” have needed it either. Reading the Ask Kimmer thread at Low Carb Friends it is obvious that the diet provided only short term weight loss.

But following a request from a dieter on Kimkins, Heidi took a shot at starting to formulate a Kimkins Maintenance Plan. Not a very good shot, in my opinion. Actually, I was surprised at how bad it was considering that while Heidi never followed her own plan, she did a lot of reading about diets and has never been shy of stealing ideas from someone else. Surely she could have come up with something better than this:

Designing a Maintenance Plan – Feedback!

OK, let’s take a look at “maintenance”. Let me jot down a few ideas and you all let me know what you’re thinking. My vision of a successful Kimkins Maintenance Plan should be focused on high nutrient whole foods. Brown rice instead of instant white rice, whole fruit instead of juice drinks, 7 grain bread instead of white, lower calorie higher carb choices (fresh fruit or winter squash) over high calorie lower carb (faux cheesecake). Kimkins Maintenance should be as simple as Kimkins. A few easy to remember rules that you’ll always have with you. Nobody is going to drag a diet sheet in their purse or wallet for eternity or whip out a calculator at a restaurant — not for long anyway.

After 10 years as a self-proclaimed diet guru, and “30 years of diet experience”, a maintenance plan is still just a “vision” for Heidi? Isn’t that proof enough that the Kimkins Diet doesn’t lead to goal? No maintenance strategy is needed.

Kimkins Maintenance must be very simple. I think regular Kimkins is ultra simple, but some newbies have problems at the beginning figuring it out. Maintenance will more complicated, but it needs to be simple.

Yes, the regular Kimkins is simple. Just eat at starvation level calories and the weight will come off. Newbies are getting confused when they follow the new rules (unlimited protein, 3 cups of veggies) and don’t see the weight coming off as fast as promised.

I don’t see why maintenance has to be complicated. It isn’t for me. However, it might be complicated for Kimmer to put a plan together as she has no clue what she is talking about. Has no clue what amount of carbs or calories would be required on maintenance.

Should Kimkins Maintenance be calorie or carb oriented? If a combination, what limits? The accepted definition of “low carb” is 100 carbs or less per day. To us that sounds very generous until we realize that much fast food, fruits, grains and carb snacks can easily meet that limit with 1 serving. If a limit of 300 carbs is chosen, then any maintenance plan fits the bill including Weight Watchers.

What a dilemma. Kimkins is marketed as low carb, low fat, low calorie. So what to increase in maintenance? The answer is really that after following the Kimkins Diet, maintenance is still low carb, low fat, low calorie. Or, why not suggest that any maintainers find another plan, like WW? After having provided Heidi with “before” and “after” pictures, they have served their purpose. She has no use for them. She will get no more money from them and they are just using up bandwidth on kimkins.con.

How do we add back junk food? Few people are willing to give up cheeseburgers (on buns), pizza, spaghetti & garlic bread, beer, Grandma’s fudge, Hot Pockets, mashed potatoes & gravy, Girl Scout cookies, or nachos for the rest of their life. My vote would be that they not be included in Kimkins Maintenance choices, but I don’t think that’s realistic.

Junk food is now defined as higher carbs items? What happened with the 300 carbs WW plan?

What about restaurants? Would a good solution for Maintenance to state a calorie limit and advice to check the restaurant website in advance?

Hey, Kimmer! Don’t you remember when you recently spammed the internet with an article with diet advice for eating out? Perhaps you didn’t read the borrowed article before submitting it. Seems that there were some practical ideas in there that you could have adopted as your own. Which you did.

I’m reminded of Dr. Atkins research. A criticism of Dr. A was that high fat went hand in hand with heart disease and other conditions. Dr. Atkins’ research over 30+ years showed that it is high fat WITH high carb that triggers heart disease and poor cholesterol profiles. If Kimkins Maintenance leans toward typical American diet aren’t we leaning toward typical American health problems?

??? Is she really suggesting that Kimkins maintenance should be high fat, high carb? Or is she just rambling?

If we suggest a calorie limit will people be shocked to realize that they can’t eat as much as they think? Permanently? I’ve talked with thousands of people about low carb and weight loss over the past 10 years. One of the top 3 questions people have (or want to argue) is calories. Particularly for people who once weighed 300+ pounds (eating maybe 3500 calories a day or more) it’s a shock to learn that at 125 pounds they’re looking at 1300-1500 calories for life — and 1500 calories might require 30-60 minutes of exercise a day.

No Heidi. It’s not a shock and if you had ever been 125 lbs you would know this. 1500 calories might not sound much when you are 300+ pounds (as you are, or at least you look as if you are). For a 125 lbs person (like myself) it is plenty of food. When making healthy choices.

Will people “modify” Kimkins Maintenance? If so, is it really Kimkins?

Modify how? There is no “Kimkins Maintenance” to modify. Didn’t Heidi suggest WW?

Should we design our ideal “Kimkins Maintenance” as the official plan and those who find it too healthy or strict can follow other plans? Do people really want a “low carb” maintenance plan?

An “ideal” Kimkins maintenance plan would have to be the Kimkins Diet so I can see that it would be too strict. But anything else would result in weight regain. So she just wants the “other plans” to blame when people find it impossible to maintain?

What do you think? The perfect maintenance plan for me won’t necessarily be what’s best for others. As an example I would look forward to adding back fruit, yogurt and milk — but others can’t wait to add back spaghetti, rice, tortillas and Sara Lee.

Heidi “looks forward to adding back fruit, yogurt and milk”? Did she ever cut them out? The latest photos certainly don’t suggest that she has been on any diet lately.

[Kimmer's quotes copied from fellow blogger Mayberryfan, who also provides an excellent commentary to Heidi's "maintenance plan". Kimmer's picture copied from another fellow blogger; AmyB.]

As someone that has maintained for several years, my maintenance approach is very simple: Avoid white stuff, limit carbs (fruits and grains but unlimited non-starchy veggies). I never count anything. I don’t limit fats but don’t go out of my way to add any either. I eat desserts and higher carb items on rare occasions but I don’t make a habit of it. Most importantly, I do not let myself feel deprived, ever. I can have one cookie but I don’t need an entire box. Why would I? I can have another cookie another day.

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.

She went from this

to this

And that was when she according to herself was an “expert” dieter:

I’ve studied weight loss plans for a lifetime, noting what worked. What didn’t. And, most importantly, why. Not only from personal experience, but from the feedback of hundreds of unhappy, overweight folks. By combining basic thermogenic body principles the turbo fast Kimkins Diet was created!

We now know that not a word of it was true. The “feedback” was from faked success stories, illustrated with stolen pictures from a Russian bride website. Her “personal experience” included WLS, but not even that produced any lasting weight loss.

While Kimmer might not be typical, I still think very few people manage to maintain a weight loss following a starvation diet like Kimkins. Assuming that they manage to stick to it without any major health problems, the long term deprivation of nutrition often backfire in the form of binges and major weight regain.

Beware of quick fixes! A huge misconception is that something you do short term will have a long term effect. Only a life style change will work for lasting weight loss.

• Long-Term Diet Study Suggests Success Is Hard to Come By
• Diet Plans Produce Similar Results
• The Never-Ending Diet Wars
• Diet Debate: 3 Top Plans Go Toe to Toe
• Study: Low-carb diet best for weight, cholesterol
• Low Carb Just as Good as Low Fat Diet
• Low fat diets ‘not as effective for weight loss’
• Low-Carb and Mediterranean Diets May Equal Watching Fat Intake
• Healthy Fats May Increase Weight Loss
• Low-carb, Mediterranean diets said to work
• Unrestricted Low-Carb Diet Wins Hands Down
• Best diet depends on desired reults
• Similar weight loss on 3 different, popular diets
• Med diets ‘as effective’ as low-fat diets
• Diet Experiment Shows Dieting Not So Easy
• Healthy Diets Have Advantages Despite Insignificant Weight Loss

If I hadn’t seen it, I would not have believed that all these headlines refer to the same study!

So what did the study accomplish? The weight loss was not significant over the two years the study covered so it’s not much of an inspiration to someone that has a lot of pounds to shed.

The “low calorie” groups (Mediterranean and low fat) were allowed 1500 (women) and 1800 (men) calories. This was not a starvation experiment. The low carb group had no calorie restriction.

The resulting weight loss was highest for the low carb group, but still modest (14 pounds after two years). To me this is not surprising as:

The low-carbohydrate, non–restricted-calorie diet aimed to provide 20 g of carbohydrates per day for the 2-month induction phase, with a gradual increase to a maximum of 120 g per day to maintain the weight loss.

Apparently, the intent was to maintain rather than lose more weight as 120 grams of carbohydrates is too high for most people for weight loss.

While this study may be helpful in improving the status of low carb diets, it will take a long time before the “experts” will stop pushing for “low fat/healthy grain/saturated fat is bad for you” diets.

The Kimkins Diet website was launched in June 2006 but had a rather obscure existence until an article in Women’s World magazine caused a large influx of customers one year later.

Many people tried the diet but rightly decided that the diet was not sustainable and disappeared. The $59.95 membership fee was written off as yet another waste of money on a fad diet gimmick. There are plenty of those around, and most of us have tried more than one.

These were the lucky ones. They left before they were harmed; physically or psychologically. The not so lucky ones stayed around a little longer, but eventually most of these abandoned the diet as well. The Kimkins starvation diet can not be followed for a longer period of time and the most natural reaction is binges.

Not surprisingly, the weight comes back on. Often as fast as it came off with starvation level of calories. The months of sacrifice and counting every morsel ended up with no results, or very little lasting weight loss to show for it.

So what do these dieters do? They return to Kimkins for another starvation cycle. Expecting a different result this time. Why? What has changed? The diet is still nutritionally bankrupt and the deprivation will lead to the same binges as last time. Why wouldn’t it?

But, the diet works, they say.

No it doesn’t. A diet you can not stick to does not work. What’s the point in keeping losing the same pounds over and over again?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

I do hope that all the exposure the Kimkins Diet is getting on the blogs is brought to the re-starters attention. This information was not available a year ago, and hopefully it will make a difference. Their life might depend on it, or at the minimum, their health.

One consolation is that Kimmer, a.k.a. Heidi Diaz, does not get any more money from the returning dieters. They already paid their “lifetime” membership fee. I’m sure Heidi is kicking herself for not making it a monthly fee instead.

Kimmer, the founder of the Kimkins Diet, has always insisted that starvation mode does not exist as long as there is body fat to burn for energy. Her diet suggested a daily calorie limit of 500 or less, later adjusted upwards to 710. The rest of the body’s needs would be taken from body fat.

For example:

“I don’t believe in starvation mode. I cannot and will not say anything about minimum calories. A grilled chicken breast and a 1 cup USDA serving of mixed greens is 200 calories. It just is. Adding fats or starches isn’t “healthier” to up the calories.”

“Don’t panic about low calories. . . . Bottom line, as long as you have sufficient body fat you don’t need to eat calories — you’re carrying them with you.”

“I don’t think we can fight the “1200 calorie a day mentality”. Some people cannot understand that your body takes the calories it needs from body fat if the calories you eat are too low to sustain current weight. If you need 2500 calories (250 lb person) and eat 500 (number picked for easy math), the other 2000 are taken from body fat.”

Why is it then that so many of the Kimkins Dieters experience starvation symptoms, such as:

• Feeling cold and having a lower-than-normal body temperature.
• Hair loss, brittle nails, and dry skin.
• Muscle weakness and muscle wasting.
• Constipation, slow emptying of the stomach, and belly pain.
• Sleep problems, hyperactivity, or extreme fatigue.
• Difficulty concentrating and solving problems or poor judgment.
• Dizziness, fainting spells, low blood pressure, slow heartbeat, heart palpitations.
• Frequent colds and other infections.
• Bruising.

You can find the individual accounts on Kimkins Survivors.

All these people were told to take a daily multivitamin, as if that would solve the problem. Obviously, it didn’t. Neither did the excess body fat they had. All of them were still overweight.

There are other obvious problems with a starvation diet. While ketosis initially may curb appetite, eventually hunger will reappear. Kimmer always claimed that hunger is not present as long as carbs are low enough. How she knew this, I have no idea. Certainly not from her own experience, considering that she is still obese.

I know for a fact that you can be in deep ketosis and still be hungry, and I am not alone to have experienced this. I read many accounts on Kimkins where people complained about hunger and cravings appearing around week 4 – 5 of the diet. Some of them followed K/E at the time; just eggs and meat.

Of course, the advice was to curb hunger by ignoring it, drinking water, soda or fat free broth. I am sure many people fell off the diet at this point (luckily for them) and never returned.

A diet you can not stick to is not a good diet. Your body is trying to tell you something. Listen to it.

Another issue is how to maintain the weight loss. If the above problems do not make the dieter stop the diet, eventually calories need to be increased. Nobody can live on 500 calories for life. The previous successful dieter now finds that she can not add anything without gaining weight. Even an extra cup of salad will cause the scale to go up.

The typical result is the start of a yo-yo diet. Eat more a few days and then back to starvation for a week or two. The lucky ones put in a lot of hard work to slowly increase their calories, ignoring the scale for a while, to raise their metabolism and have thus managed, with difficulty, to transition to a healthy weight loss regimen.

Why would anyone even consider starting a diet where there is a blog dedicated to SURVIVORS of the diet? With some 100 accounts of severe problems from it.

I do hope that anyone that happens to find the now year old article in the Woman’s World magazine takes a minute to google Kimkins before they go to the Kimkins.con website where Kimmer a.k.a. Heidi Diaz promises “Join today for only $79.95. That’s it. Not another penny.” That one time membership fee doesn’t include ER costs, medical bills or any compensation for long term health problems.

Edited to add: After I wrote this article, I came across this comment by a survivor that was made just two days ago:

KK has left me bald, wounded, sick and recovering from surgery and fear of food……no please don’t try Heidi’s Diet of Death!

Please take her advice. She knows what she is talking about. Unfortunately.

How much fiber should I eat? It’s not easy to find an answer to that question.

FDA says 28 grams, minimum (14 grams per 1,000 calories).

Numerous google hits tell me that “high fat, low fiber” causes constipation. Of course, none of them say anything about the total carb consumption on the low fat diet they recommend. Perhaps it’s the excess carbs and not the lack of fiber that’s the problem?

Some sources cite the study, now disproved, that fiber prevents colon cancer. While others acknowledge that this long established “fact” is not true, they still insist that high fiber intake is required for colon health. Supposedly, it is not good to have this “toxic waste” sitting around in our intestines, and we need fiber to push it out. The now so popular colon cleanse products are also based on this fear of the “toxic waste”. To understand why our body could not handle the waste it was designed for in the first place is beyond me.

Many diets suggests high fiber intake. The higher the better. Fiber is supposed to fill you up, absorb some of the fats/calories you eat and bring them out undigested, and prevent the apparently inevitable constipation from any calorie restricted diet.

Even Weight Watchers is promoting high fiber consumption. In their point formula, fiber is subtracted so the more fiber you eat, the more other foods you can fit into your alloted points. For example, a slice Scandinavian Bran Crispbread (16 cals, 3 carbs, 3 fiber, 1 protein) adds up to minus 0.28 points.

Then there is the other camp that believes fiber is not necessary and might even be harmful. Coincidentally, this camp is also in favor of high fat, low carb.

Of course, this other camp most likely have their own agenda, just as the “low fat, high fiber” camp has.

Barry Groves, the author of “Eat Fat, Get Thin” wrote an interesting article about fiber: The Bran Wagon. Is it true? I have no idea but it certainly provides another point of view in the debate.

Another anti-fiber author is Konstantin Monastyrsky, who is promoting his book Fiber Menace. Again, I have no idea how much of this is true, and I do not recommend buying the book, but I find the website a fascinating read.

And last, perhaps the best anti-fiber article, by Dr Eades: A cautionary tale of mucus for and aft.

Personally, I find much more in the anti-fiber information being true (for me) than the pro-fiber claims. I did an experiment the last couple of weeks, eating a lot of fiber in the form of bran.

The experiment started out unintentionally. I just happen to like the crunch from Scandinavian Bran Crispbread, and can eat a lot of it. I probably have had in excess of 40 grams of fiber as compared to the 10-15 grams I normally get from vegetables.

The result?

• More frequent bowel movements, bordering on diarrhea. I didn’t “need” this as I don’t suffer from constipation and never have.
• Bloating. This amount of bran requires a high water consumption. The two combined certainly filled up my stomach, and not in a pleasant way. Some “high-fiber” diets use this fact to claim that this would diminish appetite. That didn’t happen in my case.
• Gas. And a lot of it. Thankfully odorless. While fiber is not digested directly by the body, the bacteria we have in our guts thrive on it. I think I prefer to starve these particular bacteria for a while.

My experiment convinced me that I don’t need to add fiber to my low carb, high fat diet. And while I like the bran crispbread, it has to be an occasional treat (note, most people find these resembling card board and would never label them as a “treat”).

My results might not be typical. My diet is not low fat and I have never had to rely on laxatives to “help”.

From what I understand, high fat consumption combined with low carbs prevents constipation and fiber supplements are not necessary.

By the way, did you know that oil is a well proven, harmless (as far as I understand) home remedy for constipation? Suggested dosage is 1 tablespoon twice per day. That’s why I’m not surprised that my low carb, high fat diet keeps me regular without any added fiber supplements.

Now, a low fat diet probably needs fiber supplements. At least it seems to be a MUCH better alternative than the laxative abuse recommended by the Kimkins founder, Kimmer.

One of the main concerns for people starting a low carb diet is the apparent lack of fiber in the diet. I say “apparent” because it’s really a misconception. One of those accepted “truths” that keeps on being repeated over and over again.

The FDA recommends 28 grams of fiber for a 2,000 cal diet. Using their other recommendations for servings, I fall just short of that. For example:

• 4 servings of fruit (2 cups)
• 5 servings of vegetables (2.5 cups)
• 6 oz grain (6 slices of bread)
• 5 oz meat
• 3 cups milk

add up to only 24 grams of fiber. And this is only because I used “100% whole grain wheat” for the grain servings. Whole grain bread was introduced to help increase fiber intake so it can really be compared to a fiber supplement in my opinion. If I replace it with white bread, the total fiber ends up being 15 grams.

On a low carb diet, staying at induction level carbs (<20 when subtracting fiber) I can easily achieve the same 15 grams of fiber as on the “normal” diet. My sample menu included 2 cups cooked cabbage, 1 cup cooked green beans, three cups lettuce and one tomato.

So do I need to be worried about just getting half the recommended daily fiber intake? No, I do not. Why would I need more fiber?

The FDA fiber myth claims:

• Lack of fiber causes colon cancer. This “fact” was never proved in the first place and has been shown not to be true.
• Lack of fiber causes constipation. This is just not true. Lack of fat causes constipation.

But, IF you don’t want to try a low carb diet with just these 15 grams of fiber, the problem is easily solved by fiber supplements that do not add much to your net carb count. I routinely eat Wasa rye crackers and the Bran Crispbread I order from Netrition. But that isn’t because I think I need more fiber. I just happen to like them. Actually, I have to be careful with the bran crispbread as too much fiber will give me diarrhea.

However, a NO fiber diet that is also LOW FAT is bound to cause constipation. Look at the K/E menu below. The plate has the food for ONE FULL DAY, i.e. 3 meals.

K/E is short for Kimmer’s Experiment. It was a diet devised by Kimmer/Kimkins to produce heavy ketosis (or as she calls it, “real” ketosis) and quick weight loss. Lean meats and eggs only. No vegetables. Originally suggested for 3 days to jump start weight loss, the time limit was soon removed and it was recommended for long term use.

The problem with this diet is not really related to fiber. It is LOW calorie and LOW fat. This particular menu, based on Kimkins recommendations, provides just 376 cals (only 12 grams of fat) for ONE DAY!

Kimmer, or Heidi Diaz, does not recommend fiber supplements. They are bulking and a negative reflection on scale weight before the “bulk” has been eliminated is to be avoided. Instead, she suggests laxatives. On a daily basis.

Beware of the Kimkins Diet! Don’t be fooled by its claim to be a low carb diet. It’s low everything. Low carb, low fat, low calorie.