Why the fascination with Kimmer?

[mermaid]

Originally Posted by Magicsmom

Yes, Kimkins is written to allow enough fat to make the diet work. However, that is in theory. In practice, if you ask Kimmer why you are stalled, she will tell you to give up the pat of butter you use to cook your eggs, switch to fat free salad dressing (spritzer), eat only very low fat meats, cut out the cheese, etc. Don't forget, she denies that stalls or plateaus are a part of weight loss, so when people hit the inevitable stall (we all have them), her pat answer is that your calories are too high and to cut the fat. So, in reality while the plan is written to allow it, fat is the first thing you are told to get rid of.

Yeah, that is the problem, personal advice does not match what she did or what is written in the guidelines. It's infuriating to see an important option for some people get all warped into a sure path to eating disorders. It's evil.

[Amy Lynn]

Originally Posted by mermaid

Thanks for your excellent posts Anani and Chris. You are obviously very intelligent people, and what you have said carries a lot of "weight" with me. Sounds like the diet Kimmer originally did, if she had stuck to that like glue on her forum, right now all this disturbing news would not be surfacing. There would be happy, healthy dieters for the most part, who could easily maintain on Atkins '72 or something like that. Very sad that she has obliterated what would be a great plan FOR PEOPLE WHO CANNOT LOSE ON ATKINS.



I have looked at Stillman's and it was similar to Kimkins, but more austere. Kimkins allows enough fat to make the diet work, Stillman's does not. Some might disagree, and that's okay.

Presently, on the thread I think you are referring to, there has been a lot of success cycling between Kimkins (or Stillman's) and ATkins or Atkins '72. It seems that cycling in this way really gets things cooking! This week I have lost two pounds on Atkins, even during TOM. Before doing my 3 short Kimkins cycles, I could not lose a thing on Atkins anymore.

Through Wendykp and Inatic, I was exposed to Lyle McDonald's theories about cycling up and down in calories/fat/carbs. I think the BFFM folks do a similar thing, but I don't know a lot about either one at this point. I'm just starting to read about and try some of it out. So I guess now that Kimmer has blighted her own highly effective diet by trying to turn some people into anorexics, maybe these other WOEs can help people who can't lose on Atkins. I think Atkins should be tried first, since it's the easiest WOE to learn and follow for life. For newbies: Just do searches on these terms/people to learn more for free and get all of the support you need. Start a new thread if you don't find things discussed that you're curious about.

I have a lot more thoughts, but have to get off the computer now. Hope this helps!

oh i didn't know others were doing this, besides reading something from jeannie (tippytoes) lately....i just kind of stumbled on it in trial and error for myself.

[mermaid]

Originally Posted by Cutie

oh i didn't know others were doing this, besides reading something from jeannie (tippytoes) lately....i just kind of stumbled on it in trial and error for myself.

It's what the Calling all Kimmers maintainers... thread has kind of morphed into. For me, it's da bomb.

[AllisonB]

Originally Posted by mermaid

No way did those gallstones form in 5 weeks.

I agree. Additionally, I'm confused by the comments about low-fat causing gallbladder problems. I had my gallbladder removed several years ago (1992), and my diet at that time was high carb-full fat (a lot of fast food). Eating high fats would almost always send me into a gallbladder attack, and both my personal doctor and the surgeon advised me that the high fat in my eating both caused and aggravated the condition. The hospital gave me a video of the surgery (laparoscopic) and when my gallbladder was "collapsed" to remove it, it looks like it's full of rocks (the many, many stones).

Regardless of anyone's view or opinion on Kimmer or the Kimkins plans, the rude, sometimes personal, and often childish comments from both sides are uncalled for. This ranges from comments about cupcakes to cults.

[The Bunnell Farm]

I still think that Ketosis is simply our body chemistry reacting to to much fat stored. It can't do it's job when we keep lambasting ourselves with sugar and carbs which are unnatural to our systems and messes up our body chemistry which normally is perfect. So when we remove the unnatural sugar and unnatural carbs our body chemistry naturally senses that we are to fat and Ketosis kicks in and starts burning fat so that we can regain our perfect health. A perfectly natural process that would not have had to be if we hadn't consumed all of the unnatural sugars and carbs in the first place that made us fat!

[CJane]

Originally Posted by AllisonB

I agree. Additionally, I'm confused by the comments about low-fat causing gallbladder problems. I had my gallbladder removed several years ago (1992), and my diet at that time was high carb-full fat (a lot of fast food). Eating high fats would almost always send me into a gallbladder attack, and both my personal doctor and the surgeon advised me that the high fat in my eating both caused and aggravated the condition. The hospital gave me a video of the surgery (laparoscopic) and when my gallbladder was "collapsed" to remove it, it looks like it's full of rocks (the many, many stones).

Regardless of anyone's view or opinion on Kimmer or the Kimkins plans, the rude, sometimes personal, and often childish comments from both sides are uncalled for. This ranges from comments about cupcakes to cults.

Low Calorie Diets & Gallstones

*snip*

Low Calorie Diets and Gallstones

Weight loss dieting increases the risk of developing gallstones. People who lose a large amount of weight quickly are at greater risk than those who lose weight more slowly. Rapid weight loss may also cause silent gallstones to become symptomatic. Studies have shown that people who lose more than 3 pounds per week may have a greater risk of developing gallstones than those who lose weight at slower rates. [...]

____________

I understand that fats can cause flare-ups in people who already have gallstones, but the cause of the gallstones can be from a diet like Kimkins.

I am also aware, Allison, that we are on opposite sides of this debate where Kimkins is concerned. I will continue to voice my opinions and concerns, just as you will, and we may just have to agree to disagree.

[Amy Lynn]

i got an email from someone asking me not to be upset with "special k"...she went on to explain some personal tragedies special k is facing and she's just not herself right now....

for the record, if anyone cares...

i'm not upset with "special k" or really any of the kimkins supporters. i recognize that we're all in different places of experience and personal application of these experiences.

[sammymomma]

Originally Posted by cleochatra

You most likely have sensitivities to processed meats and to dairy, which would account for cravings. It's not always about fat versus no fat.

Fat doesn't cause cxravings. It satiates and triggers pleasure sensors in the brain, and helps food with its staying power in the gut. It also doesn't readily break down into sugar in the bloodstream.

My guess is that you are sensitive to certain processed meats (could be hidden sugars and nitrates) and possibly to yeasty/moldy/dairy foods.

Could be a possibiity

[wendykp]

Cutie, I do post on the maintainers thread altough I haven't reached goal yet, since the idea of cycling and healthy thinking is encouraged there. I don't want to embarass you, but reading your posts on ALC was one of the factors that made me chose my woe. You just made so much sense, something I found lacking in alot of other threads, lol.

[Locarb4me]

Originally Posted by mermaid

No way did those gallstones form in 5 weeks.

Did you not see that it was MY DOCTOR who told me that the Kimkins diet may have led to formation of gallstones? I'm not making it up.

As noted in the previous article, obesity is associated with the development of gallstones. There is concern, however, that trying to reduce the risk through weight reduction may itself predispose individuals to experience symptomatic gallstones. Fifty-one obese adults (13 men and 38 women, aged 27 to 68 years) enrolling in a weight reduction program in San Francisco were selected as study subjects; 26 obese, non-dieters (12 men and 14 women, aged 32 to 56 years) served as controls. Subjects had no gallbladder sludge or stones as determined by abdominal ultrasound examinations. Dieting subjects were placed on a 2,100 kJ/day diet consisting of 74 g protein, 49 g carbohydrate, and 1 g fat. Initial body weights averaged 105.9 [+ or -] 3.8 kg (162% of ideal weight) and dropped to 89.4 [+ or -] 3.2 kg (137.3% of ideal weight) after eight weeks. After four weeks on the diet, four subjects had developed gallstones and one subject had sludge as well. After eight weeks, 13 people had gallstones, two of whom had sludge and one of whom required surgery. No signs of gallstone formation were observed among the non-dieting subjects.

(emphasis mine)

and you may read the rest of this article here: Weight reduction and gallstone formation Nutrition Research Newsletter - Find Articles

If you are really concerned with the truth, just google gallstones and dieting. You will get page after page of confirmation that very low calorie low fat diets do in fact cause gallstones. Especially in people with high serum cholesterol, which I also have.

[Sweeteater]

Originally Posted by JaneJane

Carolyn, I got my old Atkins 72 book out and am going to read it again. I need to learn to eat right for the rest of my life.

After keeping up with this post since the start, I have come to the same conclusion. Now I need an Atkins 72 book.

[aloise]

Originally Posted by AllisonB

I agree. Additionally, I'm confused by the comments about low-fat causing gallbladder problems. I had my gallbladder removed several years ago (1992), and my diet at that time was high carb-full fat (a lot of fast food). Eating high fats would almost always send me into a gallbladder attack, and both my personal doctor and the surgeon advised me that the high fat in my eating both caused and aggravated the condition. The hospital gave me a video of the surgery (laparoscopic) and when my gallbladder was "collapsed" to remove it, it looks like it's full of rocks (the many, many stones).

Regardless of anyone's view or opinion on Kimmer or the Kimkins plans, the rude, sometimes personal, and often childish comments from both sides are uncalled for. This ranges from comments about cupcakes to cults.

this is from the Wiley Interscience Site
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies
(moderators.. not sure if link is ok or not - please remove link if not )

The role of gallbladder emptying in gallstone formation during diet-induced rapid weight loss


R L Gebhard, W F Prigge, H J Ansel, L Schlasner, S R Ketover, D Sande, K Holtmeier, F J PetersonDepartment of Medicine, Minneapolis VA Medical Center, MN, USA

AbstractObese persons are at risk for cholesterol gallstones because their bile is saturated with cholesterol. [COLOR=Blue][COLOR=Indigo]The risk increases during rapid weight loss by means of certain very-low-calorie diets or gastric bypass surgery.[/COLOR]

[/COLOR]Gallstone risk factors during rapid weight loss include increased bile cholesterol saturation index and gallbladder stasis.

Obese subjects were randomized to one of two low-calorie liquid diets for rapid weight loss:

• [COLOR=Red]a 520-kcal diet with less than 2 g fat/d[/COLOR], and
• [COLOR=Blue]a 900-kcal diet with 30 g fat/d (including one 10-g fat meal to stimulate maximal gallbladder emptying).[/COLOR]

Bile and blood lipids, saturation index, leukocyte 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG CoA) reductase activity, and ultrasonographic gallbladder emptying were measured repeatedly during dietary treatment.

Both diets produced comparable weight loss of 22%.

Bile cholesterol saturation index increased during both diets (26%), but fell to 15% below prediet level after weight loss.

Compared with subjects' maximal gallbladder emptying fraction of 66%,
[COLOR=Red]the 520-kcal diet provided poor gallbladder emptying (35%),[/COLOR] whereas the 10-g fat meal of the 900-kcal diet provided maximal emptying.

[COLOR=Red]Gallstones developed in four of six 520-kcal subjects[/COLOR][COLOR=Blue]and none of seven 900-kcal subjects (P = .021)[/COLOR],
an unanticipated difference that resulted in premature study termination for ethical reasons.

Blood lipids and HMG CoA reductase activity in mononuclear leukocytes fell at week 8 during both diets, but recovered while weight was still being lost.

The findings suggest that gallstone risk during rapid weight loss may be reduced by maintenance of gallbladder emptying with a small amount of dietary fat.

Ultimately, weight loss reduced bile cholesterol saturation and improved highdensity lipoprotein (HDL) levels.

One point that I found interesting is that BOTH diets produced the same weight loss.

I gather from this that to keep the gallbladder healthy, you should have at least one meal of at least 10 grams of fat, and at least 30 grams of fat total (still not much!).

[Deb294evr]

examinations. Dieting subjects were placed on a 2,100 kJ/day diet consisting of 74 g protein, 49 g carbohydrate, and 1 g fat. Initial body weights averaged 105.9 [+ or -] 3.8 kg (162% of ideal weight) and dropped to 89.4 [+ or -] 3.2 kg (137.3% of ideal weight) after eight weeks. After four weeks on the diet, four subjects had developed gallstones and one subject had sludge as well. After eight weeks, 13 people had gallstones, two of whom had sludge and one of whom required surgery. No signs of gallstone formation were observed among the non-dieting subjects.


1 gram of fat?

[AllisonB]

I was not dieting at all when I had my gallbladder problems, I was probably eating 3500+ calories a day ()

[CJane]

Originally Posted by AllisonB

I was not dieting at all when I had my gallbladder problems, I was probably eating 3500+ calories a day ()

As was stated, low calorie diets are not the only cause of gallstones, but it DOES increase the risk quite a bit. It was my own doctor who told me the reason why I had gallstones...no ifs, ands, or buts.

Nowhere have I stated that vLCD's are the only cause of gallstones, but there is scientific evidence that it is a cause. Will everyone get gallstones being on a vLCD? Hard to say, but the evidence points to a much greater chance. And that is only one of the health risks associated with vLCD's.

[aloise]

Originally Posted by AllisonB

I was not dieting at all when I had my gallbladder problems, I was probably eating 3500+ calories a day ()

there could be more than one cause of gallbladder problems.

However, based on several studies, you need a certain minimum amount of fat at once for your gallbladder to empty properly.

[dlslds]

Originally Posted by aloise

this is from the Wiley Interscience Site
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies
(moderators.. not sure if link is ok or not - please remove link if not )

One point that I found interesting is that BOTH diets produced the same weight loss.

I gather from this that to keep the gallbladder healthy, you should have at least one meal of at least 10 grams of fat, and at least 30 grams of fat total (still not much!).

omg sooo interesting!!! but i have a question: were both the 520Kcal and the 900kcal diet Low Carb?

[aloise]

Originally Posted by dlslds

omg sooo interesting!!! but i have a question: were both the 520Kcal and the 900kcal diet Low Carb?

I don't know.. it just said "two low-calorie liquid diets".

[CJane]

Originally Posted by dlslds

omg sooo interesting!!! but i have a question: were both the 520Kcal and the 900kcal diet Low Carb?

Probably not. But it really has more to do with the amount of fat in the diet. The carb level is of little importance in regard to the gallstones forming. The mechanism which makes the gallbladder empty has to do with the fat intake alone. If one upped the fat allowed on the Kimkins plan the gallbladder issues would be lessened. But, it has already been stated that modifying the Kimkins plan means one is no longer "doing Kimkins" (according to comments made elsewhere by Kimmer herself).

It is just a heads up to those who think that there is no good reason to eat more fat (thus upping their caloric intake, and possibly not losing weight at the speed of light).

[Carolina Rose]

Kimmer's response to some members still reeling over JM's "annoucement." For someone who said she doesn't dwell on the "negative" and emphasizes only the "positive," I thought calling her doubters "recalcitrant morons" and "village idiots" was a bit harsh. That's our Kimmer! (see last paragraph).

[COLOR="Blue"]I understand everyone's sentiments. Believe me, I do.

When Jimmy first started his blog he was working full time and the blogs were a hobby. The blog(s) grew in popularity and by adding sponsors they began generating decent income. Jimmy stopped his day job and focused on blogging to support himself and his family.

Kimkins was only one of his sponsors. Every banner you see at Jimmy's blogs pay him for views, clicks, sales or whatever their arrangement is. Kimkins pays only for sales. His blogs are his business, no different than owning a paint store. The business must be protected and remain viable. I may not agree with his methods, but then I'm sure he'd run Kimkins differently, too.

Many of you have shared secrets with me. Deeply personal and confidential secrets that I would never repeat. Not to another Kimkins member, staff member ... not even my sister. Jimmy is also a member and we've had conversations about his decision. As you would expect there's more to the story than written. As you would expect, I would never repeat those conversations.

I will say that I encouraged him several times over the past week to do what was best financially for his family. Jimmy has been a good friend to us and no single person has done more to spread the Kimkins name. He made the introduction for Woman's World and was never compensated by Kimkins beyond his affiliate income. Some businesses may have paid a "finder's fee". We did not and Jimmy never asked.

I must say, though, that of all people I never thought I'd have to teach Jimmy "Mr. Low Carb" Moore about Kimkins! I've got my work cut out for me.

This morning someone sent a PM and asked if our website will be "OK". Would we close because Jimmy won't promote Kimkins? Would be close because of the naysayers? Absolutely not on all counts!

Kimkins has 771 affiliates as of 3 minutes ago. Of those we have 5 (oops 4) "super affiliates". These are professionals who run affiliate programs as a full time business and generate nice commission checks. Jimmy was in that category, but wasn't #1. After Jimmy's post yesterday afternoon of pulling away from promoting Kimkins, we've had 17 new affiliates sign up. I guess they want Jimmy's spot.

Bottom line: Only 34% of our sales (memberships) are affiliate referrals. We could cancel the affiliate program tomorrow and barely feel it.

As for pulling the website because of the naysayers -- WHAT???

Smack them on their dumb heads and let's get on with what we do -- lose weight. The day that I do anything because of pressure from recalcitrant morons is the day the earth rotates off its axis. Take the site down because the village idiots are saying bad things about me? Puh-leeze! [/COLOR]

[Nady]

I must say, though, that of all people I never thought I'd have to teach Jimmy "Mr. Low Carb" Moore about Kimkins! I've got my work cut out for me.

I will give Jimmy more credit than that~ I think he woke up and actually, really did learn what Kimkins was about!

There is a certain phrase~ *Guilty by association* ~ maybe Jimmy just couldn't afford to take the chance~ when the manure hits the fan, I mean~
~~~N

[DivaHerself]

Originally Posted by Carolina Rose

Only 34% of our sales (memberships) are affiliate referrals. We could cancel the affiliate program tomorrow and barely feel it.

I must be a "recalcitrant moron", then, because dropping one-third of my income would be something I would feel.

[juniper01]

I very rarely if ever post, my comment is that because of "Kimkins", the medical community will be buzzing with activity with emergency gall bladder surgeries, and psychiatric couches filled with anorexics that don't know how to get out of the weight loss cycle without guilt. I am not a member of "Kimkins", I thought the whole program was nuts when I used to see it posted here. Most food log entries would rival a death camp victims. It is obvious to me that in their desperation to lose weight, many are losing sight of the fact that they are practising a weight loss program that eventually bite them hard with the problems it will produce in the future. The sick part will start to rear it's ugly head if young girls start to idolize "her" and her diet. The next ten years will produce a group of anorexics that will ruin their lives trying to follow this pie in the sky eating lifestyle, not to mention risking colon cancer. I hope the whole "Kimkins" THING falls flat on its face and the authorities jump in. Thank you all for being so diligent and bringing this woman who is clearly a rat to the forefront. It is my prayer that people following her diet now, wake up and realize the damage they are doing to themselves. Keep educating everyone, you brought me out from hiding.....I have not posted on a main forum in almost two years. Perhaps someone should contact Oprah, that would be a good means to bring her dangerous diet out in public view? Good job.

[Magicsmom]

re·cal·ci·trant

adjective
1. resisting authority or control; not obedient or compliant; refractory.
2. hard to deal with, manage, or operate.
–noun
3. a recalcitrant person.

It's funny, but I don't recall taking some oath of obedience when I registered. Why on earth would I be expected to treat her as an authority figure over me? I find the use of this terminology very interesting and provides an insight into how she views the membership (people) on her site.

[Magicsmom]

Originally Posted by juniper01

Perhaps someone should contact Oprah, that would be a good means to bring her dangerous diet out in public view? Good job.

I already contacted the Dr. Phil Show and asked them to investigate this. Anyone else who feels led to contact a member of the media should do it. If they hear from more than one person about this, I can hardly see how they would not investigate it.

[CJane]

Originally Posted by Magicsmom

re·cal·ci·trant

adjective
1. resisting authority or control; not obedient or compliant; refractory.
2. hard to deal with, manage, or operate.
–noun
3. a recalcitrant person.

It's funny, but I don't recall taking some oath of obedience when I registered. Why on earth would I be expected to treat her as an authority figure over me? I find the use of this terminology very interesting and provides an insight into how she views the membership (people) on her site.

It was a very interesting choice of words, wasn't it? I was thinking the same thing when I read it. Her last paragraph was ugly, to say the least.

[KandieSnap]

Originally Posted by Magicsmom

re·cal·ci·trant

adjective
1. resisting authority or control; not obedient or compliant; refractory.
2. hard to deal with, manage, or operate.
–noun
3. a recalcitrant person.

It's funny, but I don't recall taking some oath of obedience when I registered. Why on earth would I be expected to treat her as an authority figure over me? I find the use of this terminology very interesting and provides an insight into how she views the membership (people) on her site.

That, and the whole paragraph reminding everyone about their secrets she's keeping for them sent a shiver down my spine, too.

I am *so* glad you all have had this thread! Not only does it get the word of warning out, but it gives those who are trapped a place to come to when they are ready to chose a healthy recalcitrance over bondage.

[weasel!]

I'm fascinated by the persona of Diaz/Kimmer that I've seen unfold over the past couple of weeks, since I've been reading this thread and others, visiting the Kimkins site, and listening carefully to her podcast interview.

In CarolinaRose's post, the quote of Kimmer's message to her members, I notice that she implies -- she doesn't say directly, but she implies -- that Jimmy Moore ended his Kimkins affiliation because it would be better for his business. That he ended it because it would be better, moneywise, to do so. She paints herself as a selfless, kind person who allows him to abandon her for his own financial reasons. According to her, Moore cares more about money (or is desperate for money, since she mentions his need to support himself) more than his belief in what's right, or standing by a comrade who's under attack.

This doesn't square with what Jimmy said in his "Bottom Of My Heart" apology post. He said that no amount of money was worth one's integrity. In other words, he said that ending the Kimkins affiliation would lose him money. Not the other way around.

She doesn't come out and state this criticism of Jimmy -- and it is a criticism, an accusation of moral weakness. Instead, she couches it deeply in implication and transforms it into a statement about herself: She is strong enough to let him go, she played a part in what choice he ultimately made, she is above it all, she doesn't need him or his resources.

And notice how she frames this message within the context of being a highly ethical, principled businessperson. To paraphrase: "I would never, ever, ever, disclose anything whatsoever about the private conversations I've had with Jimmy Moore about this matter. Except for this...."

[aloise]

Originally Posted by Carolina Rose

...

I see that Jimmy does not have the Kimkins banner up on the current blog. but.. I have a question about this. Will Kimmer still pay for Jimmy for any sales made because people click on kimkins links within Jimmy's old blogs that go directly to Kimmer's site?

if you google with [COLOR=Black]"[COLOR=Indigo]kimkins site:livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com[/COLOR]"[/COLOR], you will see 2,100 hits. and these links are still there. and this is just one of his blogs.

all these old blogs are out on the internet with a lot of people reading Jimmy's past praises about Kimkins. How many of you google looking for something, and happen to find a blog that is talking about it. Do you stop and say, oh is this the most current page for this information in this blog? I think most people just read what you find and click on the links that seem interesting in the blog, even if they never click the banners.

Neither he nor Kimmer have really said whether Jimmy gets paid for people that click on the links as well as the banners. I can't believe that he would have links to Kimkins site that he wouldn't get paid for if someone took that link instead of the banner and signed up.

and on the same note, if Kimmer did pay him before, and is not paying him now, because he is no longer an affiliate (which she implied in by saying others wanted Jimmy's place), then why would Jimmy continue to have these links to Kimmers site in his old blogs? Programmatically, they could easily be removed without changing the content. The name Kimmers or Kimkins just wouldn't be a link anymore.. it would just be text like the rest of the text.

and Kimmer doesn't say whether Jimmy will continue to get paid for the old links that bring new customers.

Perhaps I'm a skeptic, but I can't help but wonder by leaving all these old links to the kimkins site in his old blog, is Jimmy trying to have his cake and eat it too (lo-carb cake of course )?

[SMP]

I hope the whole "Kimkins" THING falls flat on its face and the authorities jump in. Thank you all for being so diligent and bringing this woman who is clearly a rat to the forefront. It is my prayer that people following her diet now, wake up and realize the damage they are doing to themselves. Keep educating everyone, you brought me out from hiding.....I have not posted on a main forum in almost two years. Perhaps someone should contact Oprah, that would be a good means to bring her dangerous diet out in public view? Good job.

In our zeal to remove a source of bad advice (on my Web? Never!) we may be forgetting a couple of salient facts. Fact#1: If it came to a legal challenge, Kimmer would most likely win, as she espouses the official gov't position of low fat eating. Her plan AS POSTED falls with acceptable limits, especially since Stillman had medical credentials.
Fact #2. The Codex Alimentarius (ever heard of it?) is an international body of researchers whose stated position is that drugs, not food, are the way to future health. The US signed on in 1994, I believe. This is the biggest threat to the health food industry of all. By extension, it gives short shrift to ALL diet claims and supplements. We don't need to give it the sword with which to stab us through high gov't officials.
Fact #3: Publicity is what gives Kimkins access to the obese and desperate in our society. We should work at least as hard to get the low carb message across as she does. (I'd rather build than destroy.)
I'm sure there are more considerations, but I'm too tired to think of them right now.