Why the fascination with Kimmer? #9

[mrsmenopausal]

Originally Posted by JoanieOrchard

Flippy,

Maybe I’ve been too hard on you, so please help me to understand.

On the Kimkins web site, at the top, it states, “No faster diet - none.”

I’m so confused.

Does that statement apply to the original Kimkins plan that was posted, or does it apply to the plan behind the plan? You know, the one that advocated using laxatives and living off your own fat?

Or does that statement apply to the new plan - the one you came up with when you sanitized the site and got rid of all references to 500 calories or less and laxatives?

Does that statement apply to the 800 calories a day plan or to the, as you said on television, up to 1600 calories a day plan?

Does that statement apply to the cycling plan?

Does that statement apply to the no exercise plan or to the exercise plan that Heidi talks about now?

Or does that statement apply to the plan that you are, in your words, improving now?

Will we lose faster than any other diet on the new and improved plan, or should be stay with the old plan?

That lends to even more confusion for me because everyone seems to be doing a different plan, yet they all think they are on the “No faster diet - none” plan.

You see, I’m confused because when I read a statement that says “No faster diet - none”, it confuses me because no one seems to know what the plan IS, and just when they think they are on the “No faster diet - none” plan, it gets changed. But that is even more confusing because it’s a new plan but it still has the same promise of “No faster diet - none.

All those plans can’t be “No faster diet - none”. Logic tells me that one has to be faster than another, but logic also tells me that since the plan keeps improving, it means that the previous plan wasn’t all that good, so then I wonder, if it wasn’t all that good, then how could it have been the “No faster diet - none” plan when the new plan is the “No faster diet - none“ plan?

Surely you can understand why I am so confused.

Maybe to lessen the confusion, you might want to remove that statement “No faster diet - none” until you figure out what the plan is. My goodness, otherwise you might end up being sued - again - because someone might think it‘s false advertising.

Until you can answer my question, maybe the good folks here will be able to explain to me.

Joanie, I think I have some useful suggestions. To lessen your confusion you may want to consider:
rejecting all logical thought processes
not being such a stickler for truth in advertising
drinking the Koolaid
Hope this helps!

[wackytobeme]

Originally Posted by JoanieOrchard

Flippy,

Maybe I’ve been too hard on you, so please help me to understand.

On the Kimkins web site, at the top, it states, “No faster diet - none.”

I’m so confused.

Does that statement apply to the original Kimkins plan that was posted, or does it apply to the plan behind the plan? You know, the one that advocated using laxatives and living off your own fat?

Or does that statement apply to the new plan - the one you came up with when you sanitized the site and got rid of all references to 500 calories or less and laxatives?

Does that statement apply to the 800 calories a day plan or to the, as you said on television, up to 1600 calories a day plan?

Does that statement apply to the cycling plan?

Does that statement apply to the no exercise plan or to the exercise plan that Heidi talks about now?

Or does that statement apply to the plan that you are, in your words, improving now?

Will we lose faster than any other diet on the new and improved plan, or should be stay with the old plan?

That lends to even more confusion for me because everyone seems to be doing a different plan, yet they all think they are on the “No faster diet - none” plan.

You see, I’m confused because when I read a statement that says “No faster diet - none”, it confuses me because no one seems to know what the plan IS, and just when they think they are on the “No faster diet - none” plan, it gets changed. But that is even more confusing because it’s a new plan but it still has the same promise of “No faster diet - none.

All those plans can’t be “No faster diet - none”. Logic tells me that one has to be faster than another, but logic also tells me that since the plan keeps improving, it means that the previous plan wasn’t all that good, so then I wonder, if it wasn’t all that good, then how could it have been the “No faster diet - none” plan when the new plan is the “No faster diet - none“ plan?

Surely you can understand why I am so confused.

Maybe to lessen the confusion, you might want to remove that statement “No faster diet - none” until you figure out what the plan is. My goodness, otherwise you might end up being sued - again - because someone might think it‘s false advertising.

Until you can answer my question, maybe the good folks here will be able to explain to me.

This is beautiful!!

[mrsmenopausal]

Originally Posted by CJane

I don't know, the diabetes may be the one thing she's being honest about. That will not prevent her, however, from using it to garner support or sympathy, mind you, but as obese as Heidi is, and for as long as she has been obese, I would think Type II Diabetes is a given.

Sometimes liars try to use little shreds of truth in their lies to make them more believable. So, maybe...

I think you're right.

[Elloise]

Originally Posted by SMP

The "nutritionalist" has the terribly alert pose and wide eyes that I associate with hyperthyroidism.

That's it! I couldn't put my finger on what was different about her. She had the same look as that runaway bride from Atlanta a year or 2 ago.

Not that the nutritionalist was all wrong, just seemed a little hyper.

(I hope I don't accidentally start saying 'nutritionalist' in normal conversation IRL.)

ETA: Ha! Rebel beat me to it!

[mauitammy]

Originally Posted by jeanessa

I'm going to post this on the Kimkins Lawsuit site soon, but for those of you who PM'ed me questions, a few things....

1.) Yes, reject the refund! I spoke with John about this after the deposition. You are not saying that you don't want your money back by rejecting it. You are saying that you choose to get your money back through the litigation process. This is perfectly legal when a lawsuit is pending, otherwise companies such as the cigarette manufacturers and ephedra peddlers would have refunded everyone and avoided millions of dollars in damages.

2.) Yes, you need to complete a notarized affidavit or declaration form if you plan to participate in the lawsuit. I am in the process of developing a plan to get the affidavit form, for Non-California residents and the declaration form, for California residents, to everyone who needs it without my having to respond to 300+ emails as I simply do not have enough time to do that.





Now back to your regularly scheduled programming....

I emailed you to join the lawsuit and you emailed me back, but I have never heard anything or received any kind of form to be notarized.

[HoneyBee2]

Originally Posted by CJane

I don't know, the diabetes may be the one thing she's being honest about. That will not prevent her, however, from using it to garner support or sympathy, mind you, but as obese as Heidi is, and for as long as she has been obese, I would think Type II Diabetes is a given.

Sometimes liars try to use little shreds of truth in their lies to make them more believable. So, maybe...

Or it could just be that she is a "lying liar that lies".

I just had to use that line.

[Chelveston]

Originally Posted by kaligurl

Age: 32
Height: 5' 2"
Starting Weight: 122
Final Weight: 98
Total Loss: 24
How Long: 3 months
The Art of Losing 24 Lbs!
Hi, I'm Rebecca.

<big snip>

This is on the home page advertisments....
I must say I don't recall seeing anyone on here or on the adds before I was a member who went from 122 to 98?????? WOW!!:confused
How scary...

Originally Posted by susique333

I dont in any way want to hurt anyone but I this is one of the gals that couldnt quit binging on peanut butter. I liked her so so much, she was so strong in trying to find out what was wrong. Try to find her personal journals, she had several. In those journals she suffered trying to stop eating cups of Peanut butter daily. I remember the day she said she felt she didnt need Kimkins anymore and left.

No wonder the woman has a fat drive. She is underweight.

From Better Ideal Weight Body Calculations

Her BMI is 17.9 that is considered underweight (lowest "normal" BMI of 18.5 is 101 pounds for her)
Met Life gives a healthy weight for a small boned woman with her stats of 111 - 124

Medical recommendation 104 -137

Originally Posted by JoanieOrchard

Maybe to lessen the confusion, you might want to remove that statement “No faster diet - none” until you figure out what the plan is. My goodness, otherwise you might end up being sued - again - because someone might think it‘s false advertising.

Good idea!

[Peskypict]

When anyone has gone for the refund have you gotten the "need to send the paypal receipt number" tap dance? I sent it with every email so far. My membership was deactivated immediately.

[CJane]

Originally Posted by HoneyBee2

Or it could just be that she is a "lying liar that lies".

I just had to use that line.

LOL, yeah, I know. I had to use Jeanessa's line earlier myself. It's just so perfect!

Heidi is a lying liar that lies, but she will use things either real and embellished or purely fabricated as a means to her own end.

I just think she is a lying liar that lies, who happens to really have diabetes.

[rebel]

Originally Posted by Elloise

That's it! I couldn't put my finger on what was different about her. She had the same look as that runaway bride from Atlanta a year or 2 ago.

Not that the nutritionalist was all wrong, just seemed a little hyper.

(I hope I don't accidentally start saying 'nutritionalist' in normal conversation IRL.)

ETA: Ha! Rebel beat me to it!

Elloise - She did have that kind of "deer in the headlight" look, didn't she?

[HoneyBee2]

Originally Posted by CJane

LOL, yeah, I know. I had to use Jeanessa's line earlier myself. It's just so perfect!

Heidi is a lying liar that lies, but she will use things either real and embellished or purely fabricated as a means to her own end.

I just think she is a lying liar that lies, who happens to really have diabetes.

I won't believe her until I knock the sugar cookie from her clutched fist, draw the blood myself and get to do the glucometer reading. LOL
But of course CJane you may be correct and Heidi is.......
a diabetic, lying, liar that lies.

[HoneyBee2]

Originally Posted by rebel

Elloise - She did have that kind of "deer in the headlight" look, didn't she?

Or the Chihuahua with its rhinestone collar too tight!....:: Bad Bad Honeybee::

[cgkane]

Originally Posted by mrsmenopausal

Count me in!

Where's the caped crusader TT? Doesn't she have a vow to the LC community to uphold? Isn't she supposed to be making things right over there? I mean, here's someone outright abusing the plan. I hope she jumps in soon and sets the woman straight. When she finally posts to Kimmer/Heidi that she's not eating enough and gives advice on how Heidi should be doing it could someone please copy and paste it over here? I'm sure it'll be any minute now that she jumps in and keeps her vow to us all and I'd really like to see it.

*stopping my catch-up reading for a minute*




*back to reading*

[CJane]

Originally Posted by HoneyBee2

I won't believe her until I knock the sugar cookie from her clutched fist, draw the blood myself and get to do the glucometer reading. LOL
But of course CJane you may be correct and Heidi is.......
a diabetic, lying, liar that lies.

[Magicsmom]

Originally Posted by kaligurl

TT wrote:

As with anything in our lives, there is always room for improvements. Postive changes are being made daily. And we will continue to make positive changes.

For those who had bad experiences or do not want to remain here, we understand.

For those who had good experiences and do wish to remain here we are happy you did.

The oddest thing seems to be trying to make positive changes and improvements and then having people fight us for it. They say "Well that's not Kimkins then." Kimkins will still be Kimkins, even if it is a new and improved version. No diet is perfect for everyone and not everyone will do Kimkins the same way. DO use common sense and DO listen to your body. It's perfectly fine to EAT and to even snack when hungry IF you follow the food guidelines. You will still lose weight. Interestingly I have noticed people up the calories and veggies and many don't even slow down in weight loss at all. And better still is I have noticed if someone is stalling if they RAISE the calories for a week or so and maintain, many times lowering them again slightly gets things moving again.

Oh this was too tempting not to respond to.

The oddest thing seems to be trying to make positive changes and improvements and then having people fight us for it. They say "Well that's not Kimkins then."

This just goes to show what a good job Kimmer has done of making Stepford posters out of these members! After all, how many times have we all seen people berated by the beloved guru for tweaking the plan with her kiss-off "that's not Kimkins"? All they are doing is throwing it back in her face, and may I say, it serves her right!?!?!

Kimkins will still be Kimkins, even if it is a new and improved version.

In other words, she's making it up as she goes along, and expect people to pay to be her guinea pigs. Nice.

No diet is perfect for everyone and not everyone will do Kimkins the same way.

Hmmmmm, I seem to remember you telling Michele and Niki that everyone can lose weight on Kimkins, and if they didn't, they weren't doing it right. (Sorry board, had to bring up some old business from the BANTA group. She really did tell two people in our group this very thing.)

DO use common sense and DO listen to your body. It's perfectly fine to EAT and to even snack when hungry IF you follow the food guidelines. You will still lose weight.

Now, don't forget that your boss told people this over and over again, but then threw in a snotty remark that they could eat more if they didn't want to lose as fast. Anyone remember that one?

Interestingly I have noticed people up the calories and veggies and many don't even slow down in weight loss at all.

What???? You mean they've been starving themselves for NOTHING?!?!?!!!???

And better still is I have noticed if someone is stalling if they RAISE the calories for a week or so and maintain, many times lowering them again slightly gets things moving again.

Repeat after Tippy: "shake it up, shake it up, shake it up"! Isn't that the latest KK mantra?

[HoneyBee2]

It looks like Woman's World is known to help with tremendous market increases and is a tool used by many.
I had no idea that their circulation back in 2004 was 1.6 million!



This is from- John Kremer's-Book Marketing Tip of the Week-
July 1, 2004
Inspirational Story: Magazine Cover Article
“I thought I would let you know that two weeks ago we secured a 4-page article in Woman's World (with cover). WW has a 1.6 million circulation. Response and sales were not only incredible, it also has provided traction for spin-off marketing. Amazon ranking 100-300 for last two weeks. 800% retail book store increase. Ingram alone reordered 800 copies.

“The title is The Healthy Heart Miracle and the website is Healthy Heart Miracle. You can also see the WW article on our site. Incidently, this book was a second book of a two-book deal that spun off from our original 20 Gram Diet book that you and I discussed 8 years ago!” — Steve Eunpu
LINK

[LINC]

Originally Posted by kaligurl

The oddest thing seems to be trying to make positive changes and improvements and then having people fight us for it. They say "Well that's not Kimkins then." . Kimkins will still be Kimkins, even if it is a new and improved version. No diet is perfect for everyone and not everyone will do Kimkins the same way. DO use common sense and DO listen to your body. It's perfectly fine to EAT and to even snack when hungry IF you follow the food guidelines. You will still lose weight. Interestingly I have noticed people up the calories and veggies and many don't even slow down in weight loss at all. And better still is I have noticed if someone is stalling if they RAISE the calories for a week or so and maintain, many times lowering them again slightly gets things moving again.


So what do you guys think?? The last one was posted by TT

Up the calories, up the fat, eat more low carb veggies, eat when you're hungry, leave out the laxatives. And now the great Kimmer herself is even exercising and drinking water. Gee, the new and improved version of Kimkins sounds awfully familiar. Tippy, the way you're selling the program now, Kimkins wouldn't be Kimkins at all. It would be Atkins. No wonder she's such a pro at making changes to the plan and improving it. I guess it's just coming back to her now how she lost most of her weight to begin with.

Lou

[HoneyBee2]

Originally Posted by CJane

If we can get lint licker in there too I think we will be golden!

Heidi Diaz is a quasi-diabetic, lint licking, lying, liar that lies.......

Can you give me quasi-diabetic?

:: Runs to hide, because CJane may not be in a "pickin" mood ::

[SMP]

Originally Posted by kaligurl

Age: 32
Height: 5' 2"
Starting Weight: 122
Final Weight: 98
Total Loss: 24
How Long: 3 months
The Art of Losing 24 Lbs!
Hi, I'm Rebecca.
...

I have learned that taking control over food is necessary to be successful at thinness. It was through gathering knowledge, putting methods into practice, tailoring diets to fit my needs, constant focus, planning ahead, and consistency with healthy food choices, that I gained control over food.

What I put in my mouth is my choice. I am in total control over the calories I consume. Through trial and error I have learned how I must eat to stay at goal. I have power over food and, because of this, I feel free. My mind dictates food choices, not my appetite. This gets easier and easier. My eating has become routine. Planning allows me to know what I'll have for every meal, ahead of time. I honestly look forward to every lunch and every dinner.

Kaligurl, I assume you are quoting here; so I broke the quote. This is a wonderful message, but I have gotten so conditioned to look for subtleties coming from Kimkins that this is what I came up with.

"Hi, I'm a person who lost 6 lbs on Kimkins to get below goal by counting calories . I spend a lot of time planning my every bite. And yes, everybody, myself included, has to do her own homework, find her own WOE, and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for her own choices." Well, no arguments from me, because that's what we advocate on this site at all times. But from KIMKINS this is not only rank heresy, but totally contrary to the usual handholding trust-me spiel. It sounds like a divestiture of responsibility by someone with manipulative skills to show what the ideal dieter thinks and acts like, and is then held up as a worthy example.

My diet consists, mainly, of protein and vegetables. I eat beef, poultry, pork, fish, seafood and eggs. I also eat vegetables. In moderation, I eat cheeses, nuts, flax seed and dairy products...
. So, I make healthy (low carb and low fat) baked goods and often have one or two servings after my evening meal. I also have one glass of wine, every evening, with dinner. Simplicity helps, a lot, for my menu. Boring, perhaps, to some ... But it works for me.

I am not tempted to cheat or alter the way that I eat. My diet is my art. I have wrapped my brain around my food choices. My mind dictates what I eat, nothing else does. No one else does. It's a learned skill and has become quite automatic. It really can be as easy as mind over matter.

"Nobody else tells her what to eat". She "is committed to this way of eating for life." Kimmer and Dr. Atkins are credited (in that order) with her success by her use of their plans. This may be the most subtle and greatest piece of writing yet from the Kimpound. At one and the same time the poster is giving Kimmer's low calorie plan credit for weight loss (with a nod to the Doctor, although she had already lost 18 pounds following his diet), espousing what is really a decent WOE, claiming complete control over her food choices, and showing others how to do it, all the while refusing to accept any blame for any choices others may make. Masterful! Hope they keep this one up for a while so the others might do some serious homework

This is on the home page advertisments....
I must say I don't recall seeing anyone on here or on the adds before I was a member who went from 122 to 98?????? WOW!!:confused
How scary...

I know it comes as a shock to you, Kali, but <whispering> the admins at Kimkins have been known to plagiarise as well as <gasp!> fib on occasion ! It'd be nice to know if this poster is real, even nicer to know she'd done exactly as she'd stated. But y'know, it took me about 3 readings before I clued in to the fact she lost exactly 6 pounds on Kimkins. Wow, eh?

[Bunnymuffin]

This doesn't surprise me, they have awesome placement at checkstands, they always have some sensational weight loss headline and they cost $1.50 here. I have to admit to buying more than my share looking for visual junk food. That's how I found out about Kimkins in the first place.

Angelia

Originally Posted by HoneyBee2

It looks like Woman's World is known to help with tremendous market increases and is a tool used by many.
I had no idea that their circulation back in 2004 was 1.6 million!