Why the fascination with Kimmer?

[mama MIA]

Originally Posted by Kamicryze

Another great point. I don't know why I didn't notice that before. It IS much more likely that someone will WAKE up within the first month (like I did)... this would only be $20 profit for her. But the one-time fee insures she gets triple that. And with the growing obsession for weight loss, it's extremely easy to reel in plenty of confused, desperate fish to replace them.

Right. There isn't a maintenance plan that is simple enough to understand (that right there is an insult to her members), there isn't an ebook either. She couldn't make good on the book promise because she has a begining but no end.

[cleochatra]

I agree, tooter. My frustration is that I'm feeling that Martin is only looking for page hits in much the same way I feel Jimmy is only looking for page hits. They all have the same dramafacturing skills, but in the end, where is the good?

If Catherine felt strongly enough about this, she would have approached a government (or other) agency and she would have filed complaints or requested investigations into questionable dealings.

If she is letting her husband vent for her, it is extremely suspect and unprofessional. No woman, in 2007, needs a man speaking on their behalf.

If he is going ahead and telling her, "This will benefit my blog and benefit you because you'll be vindicated", it seems too self-serving to be positive and helpful in any way.

The emails should be handed over to authorities (with email headers intact and other proof of possible fraud) and not displayed sensationally on a blog for all to read.

And, for the record, if the 'blog' and all of the myriad claims at different sources claiming thinspirational celebrities following Kimkins is a joke, why would Heidi admittedly (assuming the emails are real) go and plant those seeds?

Is it an inside joke gone wrong, or did life imitate the initial 'joke'?

[Tooter]

Originally Posted by mama MIA

Right. There isn't a maintenance plan that is simple enough to understand (that right there is an insult to her members), there isn't an ebook either. She couldn't make good on the book promise because she has a begining but no end.

YEP!! I didn't follow the atkins plan by the book, but I'll be damned if I didn't find out on my own that he was totally right. He explained it in the only way he could. The rest of the homework was up to us (learning about ourselves) and there never is an end to that chapter. NEVER.

She can't make a maintenance plan, because she isn't on one. There really never is an end to the plan.

What the heck is she going to say: Maintenance, please continue to starve yourself until you lose control and binge, then revert back to my original plans.

[dlslds]

Originally Posted by cleochatra

A lot of people can't make it past the first week on many ways of eating. Even with Atkins, I couldn't tell you the number of people who saw my success, gave Atkins a shot and immediately decided it wasn't for them. I think to charge a lifetime membership is probably because as such a short-term diet for many people (meaning some may only need to follow it for a couple of weeks if they were only looking to lose water weight), it wouldn't be worth trying to charge monthly.

Also, too, she is charging for access to information. So, if she charged by the week, a person could technically go in and lift all of the information and then never go back. I think the $60 a pop was the price she placed on allowing that information to be carried off whether they stayed or not.Just a guess.

i think the price went up to cover all the $ needed to pay out to all the affiliates and still make good profit.

MOO

[Tooter]

Originally Posted by cleochatra

I agree, tooter. My frustration is that I'm feeling that Martin is only looking for page hits in much the same way I feel Jimmy is only looking for page hits. They all have the same dramafacturing skills, but in the end, where is the good?

If Catherine felt strongly enough about this, she would have approached a government (or other) agency and she would have filed complaints or requested investigations into questionable dealings.

If she is letting her husband vent for her, it is extremely suspect and unprofessional. No woman, in 2007, needs a man speaking on their behalf.

If he is going ahead and telling her, "This will benefit my blog and benefit you because you'll be vindicated", it seems too self-serving to be positive and helpful in any way.

The emails should be handed over to authorities (with email headers intact and other proof of possible fraud) and not displayed sensationally on a blog for all to read.

And, for the record, if the 'blog' and all of the myriad claims at different sources claiming thinspirational celebrities following Kimkins is a joke, why would Heidi admittedly (assuming the emails are real) go and plant those seeds?

Is it an inside joke gone wrong, or did life imitate the initial 'joke'?

Cleo, I totally agree. The time for sitting back (on Catherine's part) should be over if she and her husband are reading this thread (and they are). If any of them had any kind of compassion for people they would end this thing instead of playing it for all it's worth. I too, wonder if Martin is trying to make some money on web hits. (although I will admit I don't totally understand it).

Oh and Cleo, it is my "understanding" from reading this (someone correct me if I am wrong) That the L L pic with the Kimmer logo was made up as a joke by a member. That has nothing to do with Kimmer logging on and trying to start rumors about JA and the other stuff. I also, feel that the Joked "turned" and was then used along with Kimmers other rumors etc... To benefit the cause.

At least, that's my take on it. Did that make sense?

[SMP]

Originally Posted by CarolynF

This is a shocker from The Diet Cure:

Fortunately, the World Health Organization has solved our problem through it's experience with worldwide starvation. It has established that starvation begins under 2,100 calories per day. It uses this calculation as a basis for determining the organization's guidelines for emergency food aid.

A few of the health consequences of lowcalorie dieting:
1. Gallstones (for people who are taking in less than 800 calories a day)
2. Increased risk of developing diabetes (that was shocking)
3. Decreased sexual interest
4. Mental dullness (lower scores on intelligence tests)
5. Stroke caused by diet pills
6. Decreased life expectancy.

Somehow I doubt if I'd qualify for food aid if I had a stroke caused by taking diet pills! Or. for that matter, decreased sexual interest! I'm a great-grandmother, f'er cryin' out loud.

[Tooter]

Originally Posted by Sandra Peake

Somehow I doubt if I'd qualify for food aid if I had a stroke caused by taking diet pills! Or. for that matter, decreased sexual interest! I'm a great-grandmother, f'er cryin' out loud.

Well, you definately don't have Mental Dullness (you made me laugh) so strike that one too.!

[rightnow]

Originally Posted by Tooter

Well, to Catherine's husbands credit (Martin) He did respond to the questions about the "headers".

-----------

PJ,

I appreciate your point about the headers. I have stated the sender, recipient, and date of these emails. Therefore, the headers show nothing further that is substantive. In this series I have withheld much that is speculation to ensure that I am providing nothing that cannot be backed up with proof in the event of a libel claim.

Regards,

Martin

--------------------------

Maybe he is just being careful in what he says to ensure he has proof in the event of a libel claim.


I'm just so tired of these games. Can't one of these people put a Pause on their ego's and realize this Plan (and plan behind the plan) is affecting REAL people?

Thanks. I wouldn't have seen that.

What he did not post was ENTIRE EMAILS. He posted little excerpts, which made Kim sound like a scam artist. Now I'm not trying to defend Kim, but in all fairness, you can "excerpt" almost anything and very carefully make things sound a bit different, or hide that the receiver was obviously totally complicit in the whole thing (a possibility some have raised), or other things like that.

A complete email would simply make me feel better. Doesn't have to be on the main page, could be a link to it posted on another page. Otherwise it makes me feel like the people throwing stones have something to hide.

I'm beginning to wonder if it's a "birds of a feather..." thing.

PJ

[Carolina Rose]

Originally Posted by emmyjane

Could it be that Kimmer KNOWs her plan is not sustainable, and most people will drop out after one month, so a typical fee for a monthly plan is not going to bring in too much money ($20).

If that is the case, then a one-time fee of $60 seems the way to go. People sign up, last less than a month before dropping out, and bang, she has $60 for very little work.

I think you are exactly right with this reasoning.

Sure there are supposedly almost 30,000 members but less than 7-8% of them are on the website at any given time. I just can't help wondering how many of those 30,000 have already dropped out and are kicking themselves for shelling out that money with no hint of the plan before the fact and no refund after the fact.

[seejay]

Originally Posted by controlledcarb

Addictions like alcoholism are similar, and also brain-based because of chemical signals in the brain attempting to maintain/sustain/redo the feelings while "under the influence" of [pick your poison - alcohol, drugs, ketosis euphoria, sugar].....one is often clueless they're suseptible until it happens and are very difficult once in motion.....the person stuck "within the addiction" can't manage it (or avoid it) until they are no longer "under the influence" and time has passed to reduce the chemical signals to "go back there" again. And even then, if one stops whatever it was that was so strongly brain based (use drugs, drink alcohol in excess, etc.) and powerful....they must always be cognizant of it and aware of it's potential to take them there again.

Kathleen DesMaisons has an interesting take on this, the theory in Potatoes not Prozac.

Her theory is, there is a whole class of people who are prone to addiction because their bodies have inherited volatile blood sugar/insulin, lower serotonin, and lower beta-endorphin. This part has been measured by the research - these are the same people whose family histories include diabetes, overweight, and alcohol/drug use.

Anorexics in particular usually have very high serotonin (they can "say no" forever! good impulse control!) and very low natural endorphin. So the hunger high really is higher for them than the rest of the population. And, thanks to the built-in carb sensitivity, they do really well on low carb because insulin is "lively" and very responsive to diet.

Now imagine if you are an innocent 14 year-old who doesn't know you've inherited this body, and you pudge up with puberty, and decide to crash diet. Now the brain chemicals kick in and you start the downward spiral... after time with no nutrition, serotonin finally goes low and now you have no impulse control. This happened to my 14 yo DD (she is fine now)

So this inherited piece explains why some people get sucked into the ED spiral and some don't have to.

[cleochatra]

Originally Posted by Tooter

Cleo, I totally agree. The time for sitting back (on Catherine's part) should be over if she and her husband are reading this thread (and they are). If any of them had any kind of compassion for people they would end this thing instead of playing it for all it's worth. I too, wonder if Martin is trying to make some money on web hits. (although I will admit I don't totally understand it).

Oh and Cleo, it is my "understanding" from reading this (someone correct me if I am wrong) That the L L pic with the Kimmer logo was made up as a joke by a member. That has nothing to do with Kimmer logging on and trying to start rumors about JA and the other stuff. I also, feel that the Joked "turned" and was then used along with Kimmers other rumors etc... To benefit the cause.

At least, that's my take on it. Did that make sense?

Martin and Catherine would be lauded as heroes for stepping up to the plate and finding governmental or consumer-type inroads to get the word out. In fact, I intially thought, "Hey! these two are going to make a difference!" Now, the more I am reading, the more I realize that really it is nothing more than hearsay, isn't it?

I mean, anyone can claim an email was sent. It is easy to fabricate a private message. People can say what they want in an effort to abdicate.

I am disappointed. There aren't any public services being provided by Martin's blogs appearing at all. Maybe I'm just too much of an optimist. I want to believe people are basically good, and while all are necessarily selfish to a degree, I wonder at what point selfishness turns to greed and self-promotion?

I will support someone who is really making an effort at a mea culpa or who is trying to help others. But helping themselves at the expense of others isn't laudable at all.

There seem to be few 'good guys' in this fight, don't there?

It really is disappointing.

Thank you for clarification regarding the LL versus Alba incidents. I was wondering if the blog on the Kimkins site might have been a joke afterall, but then I thought, "If it was an inside joke, why is it everywhere?"

I hope the California Attorney General, an investigative reporter or a health agency can shed more light on all of this. Leaving it to the low-carb community at large only accomplishes so much.

[Olivia92]

Originally Posted by Chrissykin

I thought she came across very well. She was articulate and I agree very favorable to the LCF heads.

Somewhere in this forum Tom, I think said she was welcome back at any time and I think this says a lot.

Originally Posted by seejay

Kathleen DesMaisons has an interesting take on this, the theory in Potatoes not Prozac.

Her theory is, there is a whole class of people who are prone to addiction because their bodies have inherited volatile blood sugar/insulin, lower serotonin, and lower beta-endorphin. This part has been measured by the research - these are the same people whose family histories include diabetes, overweight, and alcohol/drug use.

Anorexics in particular usually have very high serotonin (they can "say no" forever! good impulse control!) and very low natural endorphin. So the hunger high really is higher for them than the rest of the population. And, thanks to the built-in carb sensitivity, they do really well on low carb because insulin is "lively" and very responsive to diet.

Now imagine if you are an innocent 14 year-old who doesn't know you've inherited this body, and you pudge up with puberty, and decide to crash diet. Now the brain chemicals kick in and you start the downward spiral... after time with no nutrition, serotonin finally goes low and now you have no impulse control. This happened to my 14 yo DD (she is fine now)

So this inherited piece explains why some people get sucked into the ED spiral and some don't have to.

Great information - thank you for posting this - you definitely have my attention now! Going to go and do some reading at her website.....

[AllisonB]

Originally Posted by Carolina Rose

I think you are exactly right with this reasoning.

Sure there are supposedly almost 30,000 members but less than 7-8% of them are on the website at any given time. I just can't help wondering how many of those 30,000 have already dropped out and are kicking themselves for shelling out that money with no hint of the plan before the fact and no refund after the fact.

At 2:19 PM Eastern time, this site (LCF) posts 64,191 members, with 602 members (<1%), and 1492 guests (2.33%) online.

[Olivia92]

Originally Posted by Chrissykin

I thought she came across very well. She was articulate and I agree very favorable to the LCF heads.

Somewhere in this forum Tom, I think said she was welcome back at any time and I think this says a lot.

I did think the interview went well....

[Tooter]

Originally Posted by rightnow

Thanks. I wouldn't have seen that.

What he did not post was ENTIRE EMAILS. He posted little excerpts, which made Kim sound like a scam artist. Now I'm not trying to defend Kim, but in all fairness, you can "excerpt" almost anything and very carefully make things sound a bit different, or hide that the receiver was obviously totally complicit in the whole thing (a possibility some have raised), or other things like that.

A complete email would simply make me feel better. Doesn't have to be on the main page, could be a link to it posted on another page. Otherwise it makes me feel like the people throwing stones have something to hide.

I'm beginning to wonder if it's a "birds of a feather..." thing.

PJ

I feel the same way. (Cleo this is for you too). He should have posted the entire email and not just certain things that Kimmer said...It makes me believe that his wife was as much a part of it and he wanted to hide that from us. (I might have been born late at night, but it wasn't late Last night) They haven't done anything to step up to the plate, all they are doing is "Playing" us. Remember when this first started and I posted that we should call Dateline, Geraldo or John Stosell? The very next day on their updated blog, he brought that up from here and said he thought an investigation might already be "under way". I got mad (on here) and said "By who? I didn't call them and you better hope no one else did because you and your wife could get in just as much trouble:?

I think it's a Birds of a feather thing too.

Obviously Neither Martin nor his wife had a problem doing business with Kimmer without investigating who she really was and then get mad at WW for doing the same thing?

I guess it all comes down to what I said in the beginning of this thread. CASH COW. If they can't make one way, they will make it another. Kimmer, Jimmy, Martin and Catherine.

Doesn't anyone have honor anymore or stand behind what they say?


At this point, in how far this has gone...None of them are going to do anything except keep playing it for all they can.

I will repeat myself

SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!!!!!!!!

[Queeny]

When things get boiled down..........it's always about money.

[Joycelyn]

Jimmy Moore has done an interview on his blog with Kimmer and she states she got booted off low carb friends website, which I believe is inaccurate (please correct me otherwise).

From my memory, she left of her own accord to start her diet business.

Does anyone recall?

[cleochatra]

Here Jocelyn. I hope this helps. Thanks again, right now!

[HevinMonkey]

Originally Posted by pinkpetals

about Kwickie's post

calorie restriction and anorexia ARE different
so are two side of a river, but once their is a bridge it doesn't quite matter they are different

the attitude that severe calories restriction is "O.K." is the bridge in this analogy...
I am sorry, but I am offended, from my own past experience calorie restriction and disordered eating exist on a the same plane not on a divide. What begins as a restricted calorie diet can easier become a a serious medical (Both physical and psychological) problem.

There is a ton of over simplification in that post. Anorexics don't always think they are fat for example. When the utilize their wonderful restricted calorie diets for long enough (or short enough, depending) they ight be happy with they see, but it might be 98 lbs their are seeing.

Extreme Calorie Restriction for health a very personal choice, I suppose. But reassuring others that its fine for them to do it? DOn't think they can't end up with an ED...

Pink - Awesome post and a great analogy to help people understand the concern.

Doing Kimkins does not in and of itself make one an anorexic, or the bearer of any ED, however, for those that have the potential to go there - it is a formula, a playbook, and a permission slip to develop an ED. Alot of people believe an ED is either something you have or don't have...period, end of story, but there is so much more to it than that. There is more information coming out about EDs all the time - some of it proving that EDs can easily be "acquired". Thanks for a great, enlightening post.

[cleochatra]

right now put up the transcript on page 158 for anyone wanting to read it. {{{right now}}}

[HevinMonkey]

Originally Posted by controlledcarb

That was FAST!!!! Thank you so much for taking the time to do that!!!!!

Yes, thank you so very much for taking the time to do that for us! You are awesome! Although, now that I have "heard" the first part I've completely lost my interest. I would rather hear something from you or Cleo any day - at least then I know it's real and from the the heart - not some self serving, slick talking damage control.

[Chrissykin]

Originally Posted by Joycelyn

Jimmy Moore has done an interview on his blog with Kimmer and she states she got booted off low carb friends website, which I believe is inaccurate (please correct me otherwise).

From my memory, she left of her own accord to start her diet business.

Does anyone recall?

She said she left and could of handled it better than she did.

[SMP]

Go back and read Rightnow's transcript. That was JIMMY who claimed she had been booted, and Kimmer corrected him. She sounded very reasonable and he came across as the rabid dog. Intentional? Likely. Inflammatory? Definitely. And a careless reader will mix up who said what and maybe get the wrong impression. Let's stick to the facts as spoken.