We lost power here yesterday, due to another major fire that broke out a bit west of us I suppose, which left me with loads of time to get a lot more reading done in Dr. Atkins' 92 edition of his Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution book. I was particularly paying attention to his ideas and thoughts on the amount of fat needed or not needed in the diet, hoping for some solid research I could further look into -- but I didn't find anything.
What I did find was surprising to say the least.
This wasn't my first time through the book. I had read it a couple of months ago when I was doing a lot of research on the Kimkins Diet. What I was looking for then, was something that would back up what Kimmer was saying in her old Low Carb Friends threads, that her diet approach was based on many things Atkins had said in either his 1972 or 1992 books.
While I didn't remember exactly what those things were that I had found previously, some of which I have already shared in this blog, I did remember that Atkins clearly and firmly backed up what Kimmer was doing as being healthy. Even though her approach wasn't something that he would choose to do himself.
The chapter on fat itself was a bit of a disappointment. Not because it lacked any substance or merit, but it just didn't cover what I hoped it would. It was more of a defense towards some of the accusations of heart and breast disease that people usually begin throwing when they hear the word Atkins.
However, what I found in the Fat Fast chapter really blew my mind. The chapter is basically about Metabolic Resistance. But it wasn't written just for those who couldn't get into Ketosis or who stalled shortly thereafter. It was also written to and for those who get stuck part way to their goal weight. Anywhere along the way, in fact.
By definition metabolic resistance is resistance to Ketosis. However there is a large percentage of folks who do initially go into Ketosis quite easily, but then eventually stop losing weight, even at the 20-gram a day level. These folks were counseled to carefully read and study the principles found within the chapter on the Fat Fast. So that is what I did yesterday.
The chapter began with the usual questions: Do you take medication? Have you had your thyroid checked lately (hormal imbalance)? As well as simple tests you can perform on yourself to find out if you fit into the resistant category. Because those are generally the 2 major causes of Metabolic Resistance.
However, Dr. Atkins also went on to say that there are 2 "effective" techniques for losing weight, and those 2 techniques hold up even if you are Metabolic Resistant. They are restricting calories, and/or restricting carbs. With all of the Kimmer/Kimkins controversy going on lately, this caught my attention. Because up to this point, the conversation regarding calories was always within a moderate-fat context. Always within the guidelines of the Atkins diet, where your hunger level would simply cause you to eat less than you did before.
But now Dr. Atkins was going to purpose something new. His Number One suggestion for those who find themselves within the definition of Metabolic Resistance (which he himself defined as "the inability to lose weight, or to continue to lose weight until a reasonable goal weight is reached, on either a diet of 1000 calories or on a 25 gram carb diet") was this:
"You might study your response to eating less food, smaller portions, fewer calories, less caloric-dense foods (ex low fat). Perhaps you were seduced by the concept of "eat all it takes," which you may have interpreted as "eat all you want," and the two means of determining your optimal quantities may be quite different. For you, the most effective strategy might be to say to yourself "I'll eat just enough that I'm physically free of intolerable hunger signals, and no more." No question, for the person who is stuck, that's the first thing to try. So do that, and come back to this section after you've given your new quantity concept a fair try (several weeks perhaps).
"You now have to answer these questions. Is the newly modified diet working now? If so, am I as happy as I was on my Induction diet? Do I feel well? Can I do this for a lifetime? If the answers are yes, then do it -- you've found your answer."
WOW...sounds a lot like Kimkins to me. And I'll tell you why. Because previously, in his tests to help you discover if you were Metabolic Resistant or not, he put you on a 1,000 calorie version of the plan. Another test was to go on meat and eggs only. No salad, no veggies, no other carbs but the carbs in eggs. Claiming there will be some who can't lose even on a low-fat version of Atkins under 900 calories.
So when you now look at what he says should be your first choice of Atkins' variations, you see a whole other picture than what Atkinites are claiming today with their high-fat, high-calorie theories being a MUST for everyone. Because Dr. Atkins number 1 variation of choice (at least in 1992) was to eat only enough calories to keep you from being "intolerably" hungry, and to pick less caloric-dense foods, which he himself defined as low fat.
So WHY all the ammo being sent in Kimmer's direction, when Dr. Atkins was the FIRST ONE to suggest such deviation from his own plan?
But hey, Suggestion number 2 gets even better.....
"The second principle of weight loss we work with (and the number one principle overall) is carb restriction. I placed it second here merely because if you are on the Induction diet, you are already quite restricted in carbohydrate. Of course, you're not at absolute zero in carbohydrate -- there are veggies, the salad, the lemon juice, and the other low-but-not-zero-carbohydrate items that make this diet so livable. What would happen if you cut way down on them? Well try retreating to zero carbohydrate, and then ask yourself the same question. Does the diet now work, and do you feel well, and are you happy, and could you spend your life on it?"
So Kimmer wasn't the first one to come up with K/E either. Dr. Atkins was making that "meat and egg only" suggestion to his metabolic resistant clients way back in 1992. And even going so far as to suggest they remain on these two restrictive diets for life, if need be--
The most eye-opening quote I ran into yesterday, however, had to do with the accusations against Kimmer for her FASTING. Yep, Kimmer wasn't the first one to suggest getting yourself solidly into Ketosis before entering into water fasting either:
"There was a time when I used to say to people, "well, you can always cut down calories and carbohydrate, and go all the way down until you are on a fast." Not as bad an idea as it might sound to someone who has never tried it. The fasting state, once induced, is full of self-protective devices. A person on a fast liberates more FMH and other lipid mobilizers than on almost any other diet, and the FMH leads to Ketosis/Lipolysis, loss of hunger, and a variety of other benefits that make the average fasting person comfortable and often exhilarated. The beautiful fact about fasting and the Atkins diet is that one can use the Induction diet to create a maximal outpouring of FMH and then, without interruption, switch into fasting without going through the hunger/discomfort that characterizes the first two days of a fast. So by doing two days of a "nothing but meat, eggs, fish, and fowl" diet, you can begin your fast already in an effective state of Ketosis/Lipolysis."
Which quite frankly leaves no arguments against Kimmer's ideas and plans, because they really aren't as unhealthy as folks are claiming they are. Dr. Atkins was using them long before she was.
So where does that leave the Nay-Sayers? Right where they are. Attempting to discredit her personally, which they then figure will discredit her testimony. But will it really? If Kimmer herself turns out to be someone other than whom she claims to be, if Kimmer has gained back any and/or all of her weight as some like to accuse her of, will that really make the Plan she has presented to us any less effective? Any less helpful? Any less true?
So whatever her reasons are for not wanting to meet anyone face-to-face yet, (and I have a feeling it's really about her status as a foster mom, and the false image of her and her diet that has been presented to the world by nay-sayers -- which she is now attempting to rectify before she can make that public appearance) to me it doesn't really matter. Because her plan, and the principles I have lifted and embraced from that plan, is helping me work towards my goal.
And in my own opinion, that is all that matters.