How is Stillman's Different than Kimkins?

superball · 08-06-2009, 12:42 PM

I know this is like, not cool to talk about anymore. But I genuinely don't see how the side effects of Kimkins don't also apply to the Stillman's QWL WOE. I have been doing QWL for several days, but re-reading all the Kimmer threads makes me scared of continuing Stillman's. Is the difference that he didn't intend for the plan to be followed long-term?

LCPisces · 08-06-2009, 05:32 PM

They seem pretty similar to me... just starvation diets mixed with lowering your carbs with the little you DO eat.

katemajoie · 08-07-2009, 07:30 AM

Hi! I don't know much about Kimkins, but I do know that that she wasn't a Dr. and committed fraud and lied to all her friends. It's a really sad story, but I'm glad I didn't get into it. When losing weight, just use your common sense, if your body is saying "I'm starving, weak, shaky, etc." EAT. Stillman's isn't really something people can do in the long term, it's a kick start. A form of rapid weight loss for people who can stand eating the bland food. You are always encouraged to take multivitamins. I haven't read anywhere that anyone is ever encouraged to take an unnatural form of laxative. I don't take them at all, just up my fiber intake (and that doesn't necessarily mean bread).

There isn't some magic secret to weight-loss. Calories in vs. Calories out. Energy (carbs) in vs. Energy out. Fats slow the process. It is just how it is. Even if you have the slowest metabolism in the world (like me

) you will lose weight. And, if you exercise, then you can start building your metabolism up, and convert energy faster- lose weight faster.

I'm not preaching because I'm definitely a black kettle. But, after a few years of frustration, have decided to simplify it. And, so far, it's been great not to have to research every ounce of every Zone, South Beach, Atkins, etc. literature. They all have these basics in common.

Not sure I focused on answering your question- mostly Stillman's isn't long term, you take multivitamins, and don't take unnatural laxatives (or any at all). Drink more water than you can even imagine to flush out all the stuff your body is converting. And eat 1200 calories- I'm thinking I remember Kimkins being something ridiculous like 800ish at the most.

Ok. That's it. Hope I could help!

superball · 08-07-2009, 11:15 AM

Hey Kate -- thanks for the input! I just know that I have a problem with bingeing, and that I can do that even on Atkins. I can't fathom wanting to overeat egg whites or fat free cottage cheese or boneless skinless chicken breast cooked without fat. I need to divorce food from its emotional significance and eat only to fuel my body, which seems pretty easy on a diet as boring as Stillman's. I do believe some on here would argue about the calories in vs. calories out thing -- Atkins and others claim that there is a metabolic advantage afforded by eating low-carb.

Neko · 08-07-2009, 11:18 AM

I was wondering how Stillman's was different from "The Diet that Shall not be Named."

Twofish69 · 09-05-2009, 04:14 PM

It is designed for "QUICK" weight loss, not long term. And please keep in mind if you follow the rules for QWL you can eat whole eggs, lots of lean meats (including hamburger even) and lf/lc flavourings to make them quite palatable. Yes, I do think it's where kimkins stole "her" idea, but she preached it to quite dangerous levels. (However, saying that, I wasn't around when she was so that is an uneducation opinion)

Just be smart, use if for a week here, a week there and eat healthy whole foods in the majority of your normal every day to day diet.

mozzer · 09-06-2009, 08:17 PM

While the Stillman's book has a few repetition diets that I think are dangerously low in calories, the diet as a whole is not so obsessed with calories. Whereas, from my understanding, Kimkins was always encouraging you to eat fewer and fewer calories, until people were getting sick from malnutrition and calling it diet success.

If you read the Stillman's book, he's directing his diet to people who need to lose 30-50 pounds or so. He did not intend people to be on it long-term (though some people's body chemistry works well with the plan and can be on it for a long time without ill effects.) I haven't read the book cover to cover in a long time, but as I recall, he suggested that longer-term dieters alternate the Quick Weight Loss diet with Stay Slim Eating (his maintenance woe with more carbs and fat content) a couple of weeks at a time.

08-06-2009, 12:42 PM	#1
superball Junior LCF Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: WA Posts: 18 Gallery: superball Stats: 160/135/120 WOE: moderate carbs/protein, lotsa fat Start Date: June 2010	How is Stillman's Different than Kimkins? I know this is like, not cool to talk about anymore. But I genuinely don't see how the side effects of Kimkins don't also apply to the Stillman's QWL WOE. I have been doing QWL for several days, but re-reading all the Kimmer threads makes me scared of continuing Stillman's. Is the difference that he didn't intend for the plan to be followed long-term?

08-07-2009, 07:30 AM	#3
katemajoie Junior LCF Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 27 Gallery: katemajoie WOE: Stillmans for a kick start then Atkins Start Date: August 5, 2009	Hi! I don't know much about Kimkins, but I do know that that she wasn't a Dr. and committed fraud and lied to all her friends. It's a really sad story, but I'm glad I didn't get into it. When losing weight, just use your common sense, if your body is saying "I'm starving, weak, shaky, etc." EAT. Stillman's isn't really something people can do in the long term, it's a kick start. A form of rapid weight loss for people who can stand eating the bland food. You are always encouraged to take multivitamins. I haven't read anywhere that anyone is ever encouraged to take an unnatural form of laxative. I don't take them at all, just up my fiber intake (and that doesn't necessarily mean bread). There isn't some magic secret to weight-loss. Calories in vs. Calories out. Energy (carbs) in vs. Energy out. Fats slow the process. It is just how it is. Even if you have the slowest metabolism in the world (like me ) you will lose weight. And, if you exercise, then you can start building your metabolism up, and convert energy faster- lose weight faster. I'm not preaching because I'm definitely a black kettle. But, after a few years of frustration, have decided to simplify it. And, so far, it's been great not to have to research every ounce of every Zone, South Beach, Atkins, etc. literature. They all have these basics in common. Not sure I focused on answering your question- mostly Stillman's isn't long term, you take multivitamins, and don't take unnatural laxatives (or any at all). Drink more water than you can even imagine to flush out all the stuff your body is converting. And eat 1200 calories- I'm thinking I remember Kimkins being something ridiculous like 800ish at the most. Ok. That's it. Hope I could help! __________________ -that chubby blond girl.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-06-2009, 05:32 PM	#2
LCPisces Guest Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 123 Gallery: LCPisces	They seem pretty similar to me... just starvation diets mixed with lowering your carbs with the little you DO eat.

08-07-2009, 11:15 AM	#4
superball Junior LCF Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: WA Posts: 18 Gallery: superball Stats: 160/135/120 WOE: moderate carbs/protein, lotsa fat Start Date: June 2010	Hey Kate -- thanks for the input! I just know that I have a problem with bingeing, and that I can do that even on Atkins. I can't fathom wanting to overeat egg whites or fat free cottage cheese or boneless skinless chicken breast cooked without fat. I need to divorce food from its emotional significance and eat only to fuel my body, which seems pretty easy on a diet as boring as Stillman's. I do believe some on here would argue about the calories in vs. calories out thing -- Atkins and others claim that there is a metabolic advantage afforded by eating low-carb.

08-07-2009, 11:18 AM	#5
Neko Senior LCF Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Joisey Posts: 173 Gallery: Neko Stats: 209/202/150 WOE: Atkins Induction Start Date: 3/14/11	I was wondering how Stillman's was different from "The Diet that Shall not be Named."

09-05-2009, 04:14 PM	#6
Twofish69 Senior LCF Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 219 Gallery: Twofish69 Stats: 129/126/110 WOE: Low carb for the winter Start Date: 10 May 2012	It is designed for "QUICK" weight loss, not long term. And please keep in mind if you follow the rules for QWL you can eat whole eggs, lots of lean meats (including hamburger even) and lf/lc flavourings to make them quite palatable. Yes, I do think it's where kimkins stole "her" idea, but she preached it to quite dangerous levels. (However, saying that, I wasn't around when she was so that is an uneducation opinion) Just be smart, use if for a week here, a week there and eat healthy whole foods in the majority of your normal every day to day diet.

09-06-2009, 08:17 PM	#7
mozzer Junior LCF Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 16 Gallery: mozzer Stats: 360/??/175 WOE: long-term induction Start Date: 09/2009	While the Stillman's book has a few repetition diets that I think are dangerously low in calories, the diet as a whole is not so obsessed with calories. Whereas, from my understanding, Kimkins was always encouraging you to eat fewer and fewer calories, until people were getting sick from malnutrition and calling it diet success. If you read the Stillman's book, he's directing his diet to people who need to lose 30-50 pounds or so. He did not intend people to be on it long-term (though some people's body chemistry works well with the plan and can be on it for a long time without ill effects.) I haven't read the book cover to cover in a long time, but as I recall, he suggested that longer-term dieters alternate the Quick Weight Loss diet with Stay Slim Eating (his maintenance woe with more carbs and fat content) a couple of weeks at a time.