Kimkins in the News

Guru Sued for Alleged Diet Scam

Kimmer about the Lawsuit

Heidi Diaz finally allowed a thread about the lawsuit on kimkins.con. AmyB reported on what Kimmer had to say in her post a few days ago: Why am I surprised.

What Heidi Diaz seems to have the most difficulty to understand is why her own weight would be an issue. Why her own failure at losing weight on the Kimkins Diet would reflect on the effectiveness of the diet. If that is really the case, why did she have to lie about it in the first place? Clearly, she knows that she would never have had any members if she had put up a real photo of herself.

She now argues that she has lost 100 pounds (several times!) and just couldn't keep it off. The diet works, in her opinion. So why would you want to starve off 100 pounds just to turn around and regain it all, even faster than you lost it? Possibly having damaged your health permanently in the process? To me, that just seems like self-inflicted torture.

Heidi also claims that members got what they paid for: a weight loss diet that works. That's not quite accurate. If Heidi cares to re-read her own promises on former front pages on the Kimkins.con website, she can easily see that Kimkins promised not only weight loss, but being able to maintain that loss. And, she offered up her own alleged weight loss success with 4 years maintaining at 118 lbs as proof (or 5 or 6 or 7 years, depending which version you read).

Heidi correctly says that the class action seeks an injunction against the Kimkins website; to have it shut down. Again, she can't really understand why and compares Kimkins with other diets like Jenny Craig and Weight Watchers where dieters also often end up regaining. She fails to see that these other diets don't necessarily jeopardize your health. If you did follow Kimkins as prescribed; 500 cals or less of lean protein and veggies, you more likely than not suffered health consequences. Just read the testimonials on Kimkins Survivors. We want Kimkins.con to be shut down so not any more unsuspecting, desperate, dieters get hurt.

Heidi also has a lot to say about money. She claims that the plaintiffs are all in the lawsuit to get back the money they paid for the membership. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I think Heidi knows this. I don't expect to see a dime in refund. I just don't want Heidi to get to keep the money she fraudulently obtained from me. And, I don't want Heidi to continue to operate a business that was built on fraud.

Count Down for Kimkins

Kimkins Yo-Yo Diet

Wikipedia:

Yo-yo dieting, also known as weight cycling, is a repeated loss and gain of body weight due to excessive dieting. ... The reasons for yo-yo dieting are varied but often include embarking upon a diet that was initially too extreme. At first the dieter may experience elation at the thought of loss and pride of their rejection of food. Over time, however, the limits imposed by such extreme diets cause effects such as depression or fatigue that make the diet impossible to sustain. The dieter reverts to their old eating habits, and with the added emotional effects begins to rapidly regain weight.

This kind of diet is associated with extreme food deprivation as a substitute for good diet and exercise techniques. As a result, the dieter may experience loss of both muscle and body fat during the initial weight-loss phase (weight-bearing exercise is required to maintain muscle). After completing the diet, the dieter is likely to experience the body's famine response, leading to rapid weight gain of only fat. This is a dangerous fat-cycle that changes the body's fat to muscle ratio, one of the more important factors in health. One study in rats showed those made to yo-yo diet were more efficient at gaining weight.

I find this being a very accurate description of the Kimkins Diet. And it has held true for the majority of her members.

Lately, the only "new" members showing up in the Kimkins forum are people that originally tried the diet around the time of the Woman's World article in June 2007. Lost a little weight then but could not stick to it. They are now returning as the "diet did work" the first time. No, it didn't. A diet you can not stick to does not work. A diet that does not lead to lifelong weight loss maintenance is not even worth trying, in my opinion. What's the point of losing the same weight over and over again?

The good news with the returning members is that they don't generate any new revenue for Heidi Diaz. As they purchased a life time membership, there is no additional fees that she can add to the fraudulently obtained money she already has.

The Kimkins board has undergone changes since the June 2007 peak. There is very little activity and there is no peer pressure to drop calories to starvation levels. Sure, lean proteins with minimal fats are still recommended, but most of the members fall off or cheat on a regular basis. Even the few maintainers are not doing a very good job at maintaining these days.

Despite that the board does no longer appear to promote a diet that would be dangerous to your health, it still should be shut down. The entire venture was based on fraud and should not be allowed to continue in any form.


[The rat study Wikipedia references might not fully apply to people, but the results would scare me off any extreme diet attempt. Even if I would be able to starve myself all the way to goal, How would I deal with the "four-fold food efficiency" while trying to maintain? Continue to starve the rest of my life?

This study examined the metabolic effects of weight cycling, i.e., repeated periods of weight loss followed by regain. There were three groups of adult, male Sprague-Dawley rats: (1) Chow Controls (a normal weight control group fed chow throughout); (2) Obese Controls (animals fed a high-fat diet throughout); and (3) Obese Cycling (obese animals cycled through two bouts of caloric restriction and refeeding). The cycled animals showed significant increases in food efficiency (weight gain/kcal food intake) in the second restriction and refeeding periods compared to the first, i.e., weight loss occurred at half the rate and regain at three times the rate in the second cycle. Several physiological changes were associated with this cycling effect. At the end of the experiment, cycled animals had a four-fold increase in food efficiency compared to obese animals of the same weight who had not cycled. These data suggest that frequent dieting may make subsequent weight loss more difficult. The possible metabolic and health consequences of “yo-yo” dieting are discussed. ]

Kimkins Faux Dieting

Kimkins July 2009 Newsletter has arrived. One of the articles is a recycled piece from last year (or the year before) called: Are You Faux Dieting.

I think it is fitting that Heidi Diaz writes this article. She certainly looks as if she is an expert. I would assume that she can describe all these "faux dieting" pitfalls from her own experience during the last 10 years when she seems to have failed again and again at any weight loss attempt. Assuming that she has even tried her own diet.

In her Faux Dieting article, she mentions things like "make a whole hearted 100% commitment to my weight loss plan," "When are you going to suck it up and finally do it?" and "It boggles the mind to hear the excuses we give ourselves for remaining fat and undisciplined."

While Heidi Diaz certainly can be seen as an expert in "faux dieting" it boggles my mind that she has the gall to imply that she has been successful herself. Do as I say and not as I do?

Kimkins SPAM

I am banned from Kimkins. Since September 2007. But I still receive newsletters, recipes and emails from Kimkins.con. Several times per month.

It doesn't matter how many times I unsubscribe. The emails keep on arriving.

I wonder if Heidi Diaz knows that she is in violation of the CAN-SPAM act.

From the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) website:

What the Law Requires

Here's a rundown of the law's main provisions:

• It bans false or misleading header information. Your email's "From," "To," and routing information – including the originating domain name and email address – must be accurate and identify the person who initiated the email.
  
  
• It prohibits deceptive subject lines. The subject line cannot mislead the recipient about the contents or subject matter of the message.
  
  
• It requires that your email give recipients an opt-out method. You must provide a return email address or another Internet-based response mechanism that allows a recipient to ask you not to send future email messages to that email address, and you must honor the requests. You may create a "menu" of choices to allow a recipient to opt out of certain types of messages, but you must include the option to end any commercial messages from the sender.
  
  Any opt-out mechanism you offer must be able to process opt-out requests for at least 30 days after you send your commercial email. When you receive an opt-out request, the law gives you 10 business days to stop sending email to the requestor's email address. You cannot help another entity send email to that address, or have another entity send email on your behalf to that address. Finally, it's illegal for you to sell or transfer the email addresses of people who choose not to receive your email, even in the form of a mailing list, unless you transfer the addresses so another entity can comply with the law.
  
  
• It requires that commercial email be identified as an advertisement and include the sender's valid physical postal address. Your message must contain clear and conspicuous notice that the message is an advertisement or solicitation and that the recipient can opt out of receiving more commercial email from you. It also must include your valid physical postal address.

The emails from Kimkins.con fulfill these requirements, with the exception of the "opt-out."

I don't doubt that Heidi will blame "technical glitches" or duplicate databases and email services but the Law doesn't allow for such an excuse. It clearly says that you have to honor the opt-out and stop sending emails within 10 days.

The FTC also spells out the penalties:

Penalties

Each violation of the above provisions is subject to fines of up to $11,000.

As Heidi does not seem to be aware that she is in violation of this law (or does not care) I made sure that the FTC knows about her spamming. It is very easy to submit a complaint on the FTC website.

Kimkins Cyber Attorney

Since when does legal correspondence take place via email? Heidi Diaz' attorney, Peabody, apparently thinks that this is a proper form of communication.

Is this something new approved in legal circles that I am just not aware of? All my dealings with attorneys have always involved written letters by mail or fax.

To me, there seems to be a reason for this. There is no easy way to tell WHO sent an email. There is no easy way to tell if an email was received (served). How can you know it doesn't end up in a spam filter that the recipient is never checking?

Nevertheless, Peabody keeps on sending "official" Cease and Desist emails to anti-kimkins blogger. Affiliatescams has posted the email she received. Note that her email wasn't even sent directly to her. Unbelievable. But then nothing should really surprise us when it comes to this Kimkins saga, should it?

Also, read the comments to Affiliatescams' post. One blogger (Becky) received a Cease and Desist as a blog comment. Blog comment! How can that be considered Service of Process?

So what is the purpose of these Cease and Desist emails and comments? Peabody says to Affiliatescams: "demand is hereby made that you immediately cease and desist from making any further derogatory or untoward comments on your blog(s) regarding my client and her business interests".

What about the First Amendment? Consumer rights?

I am a disgruntled (banned) customer of Kimkins and have the right to express my dissatisfaction with their service (or lack thereof). My blog certainly has a lot of untoward comments regarding Heidi Diaz but that is less of my doing that hers. If Heidi had not flooded the internet with her lies and fraudulent pictures, I would not had anything to write about.

While it might be beneficial for Peabody (billing hours!) to write these emails, we expect that he will be busy with real legal actions soon. There is an unprecedented hearing set for a Motion for Summary Judgement set for August 24. Read about it on Kimkins Class Action Lawsuit blog, and mark your calendars.