Dear forumites!

This is my first post in this forum, and I really want to share an issue which I experienced digging through all the studies.

In the first place, there are two main hypotheses which go around. Fat is Bad and Carbs are Bad There are numerous credible studies which give us a solid evidence that the second one is a valid theory. It has been proven, beginning with the Jenkins study that fat and proteins do nearly nothing to blood sugar levels, while carbs are the insulin trigger No.1. On the other side, Low Fat proposers all stick to Fat is Bad - hypothesis, claiming that it's fat which causes obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and artherosclerosis. I was confronted many times with this hypothesis while debating Vegans, and of course I asked them for assorted studies which prove that fat is indeed causing all this. Anf they gave me such studies. In addition I did my research on my own, through all the diet forums, vegan sites and Co. Now I like to prsent what I found.

OK. Dr. Ornish, Dr. McDougall and other famous High Carbers actvely promote 60-70% of our diet to be of carbs like potatoes, rice, wheat, rye and other whole grains. But what are their ideas based on? Here are the most credible studies on High-Fat-Low-Carb Vs. Low-Fat-High-Carb I was able to find!

Study 1. The most credible one.
Nathan A. Johnson: Effect of short-term starvation versus high-fat diet on intramyocellular triglyceride accumulation and insulin resistance in physically fit men. School of Exercise and Sport Science, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe 1825, Australia.This one was sited to support Fat is Bad hypothesis. However, if you take the time to read through it, for anti-fatters it ends in nowhere.
Diet:Insulin level findings:
But about FAT?A very clear statement that fat by itself had no effect on the increase of insulin resistance, which was mainly a natural responce of the body to a harsh carb restiction, a body which is trained to be constantly fed with carbs. And from the study data we see this one is a true Low Carb diet. CONCLUSION: Everyone who sites this study as a proof that "fat increases insulin levels" is hoping that you're ignorant enough not to read the text.

Study 2.
Rebecca L Adochio: Early responses of insulin signaling to high-carbohydrate and high-fat overfeeding. © 2009 Adochio et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
And our search for truth ends here:We see here staggering 30% carbs which were fed to probands, along with 50% of fat! The findings of the study were not suprising. I got this one labeled as "see?! Fat increase did harm, therefore fat is bad!!"

Just for the sake of comparison, here is the nutritional data of a infamous burger: 200g of this product contain 11,55% (23,1g) fat, 21% (42g) carbs and 12,8% (25,6g) protein. And we know this product as "especially heathy and non-fattening" Not to say about 30% carbs...

Study 3.
G. Boden: Free fatty acids, insulin resistance, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Division of Endocrinology/Diabetes/Metabolism and the General Clinical Research Center, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA 19140, USA.
Other works of this author also suggest that FFA increase is indeed associated with insulin resistance, which is completely d'accord with N. A. Johnson study I listed first. Johnson study (and others, he cited) however clearly show that Fat intake does not correlate with FFA increase at all, as well as insulin concentrations! CONCLUSION: Anyone who sells you these studes as proof of "fat vile-ness" just draws a fantasy line between fat intake and increase of FFA's which has never been proven in studies! At least no one is known to me. Increase of FFA's is a complex process where al parts of diet play their role, as Johnson suggests, and carb restriction can lead to it as well.

Study 4.
B. A. Swinburn: Deterioration in Carbohydrate Metabolism and Lipoprotein Changes Induced by Modern, High Fat Diet in Pima Indians and Caucasians. Clinical Diabetes and Nutrition Section, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health Phoenix, Arizona 85016
I wonder why... Maybe its all about the usual 30% carbs??? Nothing more to say here.

Study 5.
Lourdes M Varela, Almudena Ortega, Beatriz Bermudez, Sergio Lopez: A high-fat meal promotes lipid-load and apolipoprotein B-48 receptor transcriptional activity in circulating monocytes. AJCN. First published ahead of print March 2, 2011
Oh Lord, here we go again...Anything suspicious? 22% carbs in form of pasta and bread are not relevant at all, it's just fat, of course... [/sarcasm] *FACEPALM*

Two random less known early studies.
...Which are still sold as "bulletproof evidence" that fat is bad...
Elliot B, Roeser HP, Warrell A: Effect of a high energy, low carbohydrate diet on serum levels of lipids and lipoproteins. 1981 Mar 7
Two(!) probands were tested a high-fat diet of unknown composition. Long-term? No. Best suitable for sensational propaganda? Yes.
Frank Rickman, MD: Changes in Serum Cholesterol During the Stillman Diet. JAMA. 1974
The study tried to test the efficacy of Stillman diet, which is actually protein based and nowhere near "High Fat."

_ _ _

These studies actually show us one thing - Standard Americal Diet with their up to 50% fat and 30% carbs is harmful! Fat by itself does not increase insulin resistance, does not cause diabetes and does not cause obesity related to previous dieases. Fat by itself is also not connected to FFA/cholesterol increase, which is associated with arthersclerosis and cardiovascular diseases. Studies like THIS ONE (there are dozens like this one) is not based on carb restriction, and can't say anything about fat itself. Two ketogenic studies:
Yancy WS Jr, Olsen MK: A low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-fat diet to treat obesity and hyperlipidemia: a randomized, controlled trial. Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27705, USA.
Dashti HM, Al-Zaid NS, Mathew TC: Long term effects of ketogenic diet in obese subjects with high cholesterol level. Department of Surgery, Kuwait University, Safat, Kuwait.
... are completely pro low-carb, and shows significant improvements in health! Especially the last one, done on obese people, showed clearly the benefits for those who suffer obesity. Decreasing cholesterol by eating lots of good fat and minimum carbs seems to be the worst horror for anti-fat proponents.

But High Carbers are constantly siting most of these studies as a proof that it is the fat which caused all the disease, making it evident that they just go by single lines (="quote mining") with the intention to impress people. Most of them seem not to read the whole abstract in the first place. Dr. Ornish is the best example of promoting High Carb loudly, his latest crusade against Atkins led him to publish THIS, which is the best example of mislabeling things according to his taste. To call 37-60% carb based diet "Atkins diet" is the same as labeling glucose-fructose sirup "healthy and non-fattening"...

* * *

In the end we end up with blanket statements like "everyone knows that fats increase cholesterol levels which cause cardiovascular diseases and arthersclerosis"", but with no real scientific proof, besides the scientifically proven fact that 30% carb 50% fat diets are harmful. The state of scientific knowledge today, derived from all the studies - Low Carb diets, if done correctly, will improve your health in most cases. Fat by itself(!) does not cause any of those diseases (obesity, diabetes, arthersclerosis, cardiovascular issues) which are traditionally associated with fat!.

Please comment and give links to studies, if you know good ones, which seemingly give conclusive evidence that fat is bad for health by itself.

Best Wishes

ketogenium

Welcome to the forums.

You want links to bad studies? First time I see this. I have a few links to good studies if you like. Now that I think about it, I should keep a list of bad studies too. To keep track of the bad guys sorta kinda.

Yes, I do! Mainly because debates with anti-fat Vegans taught me one thing; they mention same studies over and over again trying to convice you. Good studies supporting low-carb are plentiful, but you have to know bad ones too when it comes to refute common hogwash about Atkins and "high fat kills". Do not allow circular arguments but short hard answers "you mean this study? With 30% carbs, labeled as Atkins? Cool story, bro..."

I admit I was expecting that there are some studies which ended in bad results for low-carb or ketogenic diet. And here is one which supposedly confirmed that ketogenic diets can be really dangerous:
Michael S Duchowny, MD: Food for Thought: The Ketogenic Diet and Adverse Effects in Children. Epilepsy Curr. 2005 July; 5(4): 152–154.
This one could be the hit among High Carbers, and the long awaited evidence that "low carb and ketosis can KILL!" However... Nope, still no conclusive proof that "ketosis killZ".

It is not a hard thing to test for.

Get 100 diabetics in the same room. Feed them 1/2 pound of bacon and check the glucose.

Later feed them pasta. Test the glucose.

The next day feed them a steak with no BBQ sauce. test the glucose.

What I want to know is how to get someone to pay me big bucks to do deliberately flawed research?

I think the ketogenic diet for epilepsy is typically used in cases that don't respond to drugs. What I see here is an a priori selection bias against the ketogenic diet by virtue of being used on the most difficult group only. I think that's what the Duchowny study really shows. It's a bit like low-carb and obese people. Of course we'll find more obese people eating low-carb than lean people, since the primary reason for low-carb is weight loss. Yet there's still the argument that because of this association, low-carb makes people fatter.

Here are some studies which give solid proof that High Carb diets indeed raise "blood fat", a symptom known as Hypertriglyceridemia.

Marc K. Hellerstein: Carbohydrate-induced hypertriglyceridemia: modifying factors and implications for cardiovascular risk. 2002 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Coulston AM, Hollenbeck CB: Persistence of hypertriglyceridemic effect of low-fat high-carbohydrate diets in NIDDM patients. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, California. This one can be downloaded as PDF .

Susan K Fried, Salome P Rao: Sugars, hypertriglyceridemia, and cardiovascular disease. 2003 American Society for Clinical Nutrition

My personal hope to find anything conclusive about all the "terrible dangers of low carb high fat diets", especially the diet created by Dr. 'Evil' Atkins, slowly fades away. It seems that anti-fatters indeed do not have any evidence against fat, but low carbers have loads of good studies pointing High Carb out as the real problem. High Carb causes diabetes, rises "blood fat" and makes people obese and constantly hungry - this is what we see from studies! And not a single one study based on a ketogenic diet which proves that "fat by itself increases blood fat levels, blood sugar levels and is associated with weight increase as well as artherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease"!

What do agressive anti-fat High Carb promoters rely on? How can they say such embarrassing things like "fat increases blood sugar" or "dietary cholesterol goes straight into blood" with a straight face in the first place, although they probably know from Wikipedia that's not true?

Probably I'll never know.

ketogenium

Your numbers are wrong on CHO content of high carb diets.

I don't know about Ornish, but McDougall, Esselstyn, and Barnard all recommend 80-10-10, with 80% of calories coming from CHO. It's a diet that restricts protein/methoinine, restricts processed foods to near-zero, and is extremely high in micronutrients and fiber as well as being naturally low in calories. That combination is what is necessary in order to see the physiological and genetic changes noted in the calorie restriction studies.

Since the calorie density of these diets is so low, people can eat until they are stuffed, still lose weight, and never go hungry.

The books of McDougall and Esselstyn are filled with citations about the cholesterol hypothesis being solid science and the physiological changes that occur after following an 80-10-10 diet. Barnard wrote a book on reversing T2 DM with a whole foods plant-based diet and the findings of his studies are in the book.

Can you point us to a study in which LC diets reverse heart disease? The Forks Over Knives website is a good place to get more info. Watch the film if you have time.

It took me a long time to come around to a plant-based whole food calorie restricted diet as the right way for me to improve my biomarkers and try and increase my longevity. Even Atkins acknowledged that cholesterol levels on LC start creeping back up after an initial drop from weight loss. That's not where I wanted to go.

There's no question that the Atkins diet causes weight loss. Any diet that restricts calories will cause weight loss. But for long-term health? Guess I've gone over to the "dark side," because the research on whole plant foods is too compelling for me to ignore.

You don't have to starve yourself to reap the benefits of calorie restriction unless you are on a high carb diet. Fat is a free fuel, protein and carbs are not as they trip the nutrient sensors and steer the cells toward proliferation rather than maintenance and repair. Dr. Rosedale explains:
http://youtu.be/LvTE--5w808

Long term health is a funny discussion though... You're talking about weight loss scenarios here; which are by definition short term, and just by being in a caloric deficit will generally create great marker numbers. What happens to that 80/10/10 diet when the individual scales it to maintenance, say at 3500 kcal / day? Can you even DO 3500 kcal/day without touching sugars and starches? How many millions in the US can't touch sugars and starches safely without metformin or more potent interventions?

My take is that IF you can eat to energy balance on 80/10/10, not rely on insulin sensitizing medicine, and do so without posting abnormal blood glucose concentrations, then it'll probably work fine. Many can't. I can't eat more than about 50g of carbs per meal, even with lots of fiber/fat/protein to slow it down, without screwing up my bG. That's 600 kcal for three meals. This morning's bike ride, shopping in town... (1100 kcal over bmr) (lots of sprints and long sustained high output cardio, about 25 miles total, awesome fun) That sets the day's expenditure at about 3500 kcal. So try an 80/10/10 diet with no more than 150g of sugar or starch and 3500 kcal... I can't imagine it even being possible to eat that much volume.

This is what I like about the LC approach, with very tiny changes in quantity of food, I can be at maintenance, or eat to balance a very active day, or nibble just a bit less for a sleepy day, or a mild deficit as I've decided to cut that last bit of weight to show the fabled "abs" just for geezer grins. [I weigh practically everything though to the gram...]

I just bring this up because I think its important to think about matching the energy balance maintenance diet with lifestyle and health needs of the individual.

To vegan'ism; while I'm not a subscriber, you can get those high density requirements with nut butters. Flavor with various spices, extracted oils, and sucralose/stevia and you have an easily digestible, high flavor variety source to make the grade. They won't be high carb though!

Your statement is true for people who are good carb metabolizers, but what about who aren't? Let's do a calculation. If we choose a standard 2000kcal diet, 30% of it would be 600. 600kcal in form of cooked rice (most favourite starchy food among High Carbers, 112kcal per 100g) would be 535 gram or 1,18 pounds!! This is a full plate of cooked rice, which can't be insulin neutral, because it contains 125g of carbs (23g per 100g) having a glycaemic index (GI) of 70 and glycaemic load (GL) of 55. Diabetics are only allowed starches with GI below 50 and GL below 10, otherwise they will have a blood sugar spike provoking a rapid insulin level increase.

If you adjust the numbers to 80% carbs, in form of cooked rice (Dr. McDougall advocates "all starches you can eat" without restrictions), we come up to 1,4kg cooked rice or 3 pounds! It's not a plate anymore, its a big bowl. You're truly stuffed with this one, but the insulin responce will be staggering, because of 333g carbs in it with a high GL. Now you have only one way to keep it all down - exercise for hours. And this is exactly the reason why 30% carbs is still "High Carb", if it comes to insulin response both will skyrocket your levels, 80% carbs will just make the blood sugar spike last longer because of the longer digestion time. And if you add fat to it, then you'll have a study which says 50% fat and 30% carbs are evil. Here are some links from J. Fuhrmann, advocating a vegetable & nuts based diet. Nothing is said about starches or cereals:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-...e_b_783565.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-...n_b_695474.html
Now here's the study Fuhrmann refers to, which shows that a plant-based diet rich of nuts and nut fats can vastly improve or even reverse heart disease:
Penny M. Kris-Etherton, Frank B. Hu: The Role of Tree Nuts and Peanuts in the Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease: Multiple Potential Mechanisms. 2008 American Society for Nutrition Please note, nowhere are they talking about eating starches or reducing fat. Fuhrmann in his article explicitely says: .Forks over Knives clearly advocates Vegganism. Links to "Farm Sanctuary" and "Mercy for Animals" let you know for sure.There are not enough long-term studies about LC diets, but here's one about ketogenic diets used to treat epilepsy. The conclusion is, it seems to be safe over long term: http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...00216163531.htm Funny enough I do not oppose Veganism at all. If I were Veg, I'd replace meats by protein rich plants and consume my veggies with huge loads of low- or non-processed linseed oil, nuts and olive oil. The only reason why Veggans condemn fat is they too strongly associate fat with animals.

Again, some studies...

MORTALITY
Key TJ, Appleby PN: Mortality in British vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
... and I quote: Within the study, mortality from circulatory diseases and all causes is not significantly different between vegetarians and meat eaters, but the study is not large enough to exclude small or moderate differences for specific causes of death, and more research on this topic is required. Vegan lower mortality is therefore still a matter of personal belief, and not proven by science.

THROMBOSIS
Rajaram S.: The effect of vegetarian diet, plant foods, and phytochemicals on hemostasis and thrombosis. Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350, USA
Quote: Cross-sectional studies indicate that vegetarians may have a lower concentration of certain markers of hemostasis compared with nonvegetarians. .... Although this review suggests that a plant-based diet with sufficient n-3 fatty acids and certain fruits and vegetables may have a favorable impact on hemostasis and thrombosis, the evidence is neither sufficient nor conclusive at this time to warrant specific recommendations for the public. Clearly, much remains to be done in this area of investigation.

LEGUMES AND DIABETES TYPE 2
Villegas R, Gao YT, Yang G: Legume and soy food intake and the incidence of type 2 diabetes in the Shanghai Women's Health Study. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Nashville, TN 37203-1738, USA
Quote: The objective of the study was to examine the association between legume and soy food consumption and self-reported type 2 DM. ... We observed an inverse association between quintiles of total legume intake and 3 mutually exclusive legume groups (peanuts, soybeans, and other legumes) and type 2 DM incidence. The multivariate-adjusted relative risk of type 2 DM for the upper quintile compared with the lower quintile was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.51, 0.74) for total legumes and 0.53 (95% CI: 0.45, 0.62) for soybeans. Not a clinical one, so be taken with a grain of salt. But sill, fatty nuts like peanuts seem to be the "real McCoy" in Vegetarian diets. Study by Penny M. Kris-Etherton (see in previous posts) came to same conclusion. Ironically, peanuts, nazelnuts and walnuts have only traces of starch/carbs and are made up to 80% of FAT.

HYPERTENSION
Appleby PN, Davey GK, Key TJ: Hypertension and blood pressure among meat eaters, fish eaters, vegetarians and vegans in EPIC-Oxford. Cancer Research UK, Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Gibson Building, The Radcliffe Infirmary, UK
Quote: Non-meat eaters, especially vegans, have a lower prevalence of hypertension and lower systolic and diastolic blood pressures than meat eaters, largely because of differences in body mass index. Simply said; less tissue, less muscle, less work for the heart.

VEGETARIAN vs. VEGAN
Fraser GE.: Vegetarian diets: what do we know of their effects on common chronic diseases? Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA
Quote: The purpose of this review is to look critically at the evidence on the health effects of vegetarian diets and to seek possible explanations where results appear to conflict. There is convincing evidence that vegetarians have lower rates of coronary heart disease, largely explained by low LDL cholesterol, probable lower rates of hypertension and diabetes mellitus, and lower prevalence of obesity. ... However, results for specific cancers are much less convincing and require more study. There is evidence that risk of colorectal cancer is lower in vegetarians and in those who eat less meat; however, results from British vegetarians presently disagree, and this needs explanation. ... Although vegetarian diets are healthful and are associated with lower risk of several chronic diseases, different types of vegetarians may not experience the same effects on health. Most objective results there are. While some people on some Veg diets will indeed greatly benefit from it, others may not. And now some well researched evidence that Vegetarian diet (not Veggan) can be beneficial for health, if carefully planned: https://www.mja.com.au/open/2012/1/...vegetarian-diet Vegetarian diets exclude meats but include dairy products, plant oils, nuts and eggs, thus they're not anti-fat.

MOOD
Bonnie L Beezhold and Carol S Johnston: Restriction of meat, fish, and poultry in omnivores improves mood: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Beezhold and Johnston Nutrition Journal 2012
The very first thing you should watch is Table 1, page 3 of 5, and pay attention to FFA's (free fatty acids) levels. Interestingly, omnivores kept their levels, figh eaters experienced considerable improvement, and vegetarians began with highest FFA levels, but ended with lowest of all test groups. The short-term improvement in mood is a good thing, but it can be attributed to endorphines which are released by our brains if malnutrition and starvation take place nad make us feel better.

And finally some "7th Day Adventist studies", based on questionnaires among groups, enjyoing a Vegan lifestyle because of their religious beliefs.

Tonstad S, Butler T, Yan R: Type of vegetarian diet, body weight, and prevalence of type 2 diabetes. Department of Health Promotion and Education, School of Public Health, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California, USA OK... Data given by a religious group promoting Veganism, no chance to check the people themselves under cinical conditions and of course it includes some "math magic" to fill the gaping holes in all this.

Giem P, Beeson WL, Fraser GE: The incidence of dementia and intake of animal products: preliminary findings from the Adventist Health Study. Department of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University, CA 92350 Again, no conclusive data available about methods and diets.

I tried to get my hands on original papers somewhere in the Internet, but I wasn't able to find any. Almost all parts of human health, including heart disease, Alzheimer, longevity, cancer, etc. were reported by Adventists with staggering numbers, for ex. 60% lower heart disease rates. Those numbers look like they have the original Holy Grail which makes them nearly immortal. And aticles related to Adventist Health Studies (AHS) never give a conclusive link but generally refer to AHS as "immense proof".

Considering their methods and obscure data I am inclined to think this is just a part of their religious agenda. Questionnaires among Adventists? It is the same as if you want to run a study on "Prevalence of Homosexuality" and collect your data from Christian Fundamentalists from Bible Belt. You'll get 99% pure natural hetero men in your questionnaires.

Religious agenda is not science.

ketogenium

Now some final words about saturated fat, the biggest scapegoat around the dietary world.

Siri-Tarino PW, et al.: Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr 2010;91(3):535-46 Quote: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.

Skeaff CM, et al. Dietary fat and coronary heart disease: summary of evidence from prospective and randomised controlled trials. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 2009;55:173-201 Quote: Intake of total fat was not significantly associated with CHD mortality, with a RR for highest compared with the lowest category of 0.94 (95% CI 0.74–1.18, p = 0.583; fig. 1 ). Intake of total fat was also unrelated to CHD events (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84–1.03, p = 0.177). For the analysis that used 5% percent increase in total fat intake, there was no significant association of total fat intake with CHD mortality (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88–1.28, p = 0.517) or CHD events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98–1.05, p = 0.404) per 5% total energy (TE) increment in total fat intake ( fig. 3 ). ... Intake of TFA (trans fat acids) was strongly associated with CHD mortality, with a RR of CHD death of 1.32 (95% CI 1.08–1.61, p = 0.006) for the highest compared with the lowest category ( fig. 4 ).

Hooper L, et al. Reduced or modified dietary fat for preventing cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jul 6;7:CD002137 Quote: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effect of reduction or modification of dietary fats on total and cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular morbidity over at least 6 months, using all available randomized clinical trials. ... There was no significant effect on total mortality (rate ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.12), a trend towards protection form cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07), and significant protection from cardiovascular events (rate ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.99)..

* * *

Finally there is still no real evidence that FAT by itself, and especially saturated FAT increases mortality or causes diseases. This should put to the rest the old myth, created by Ancel Keys and propagated around the world by carb prophets.

Take care

ketogenium

Its funny you mention that. My recipe for a 500ml jar of x-nut butter:

400g [almond/cashew/peanut] roasted & salted
5g of KCl salt (nu-salt, whatever)
1g of MgCl salt (Japanese use it to congeal tofu)
100 ml splenda (its very lightweight stuff, made to measure by volume)
30g Flax(aka linseed) oil.
nutmeg/cinnamon/sea salt/whatever to taste.

Made in food processor.

Only thing to watch is the temperature of the mix, its takes a few minutes to go from nut to nut butter, and the friction of the blade through the mixture increases the temp. Flax oil oxidizes at fairly low temps. I've not tried chilling the nuts to start with, though I will on my next batch. Store in refrigerator.

I eat it in the same way I used to eat ice cream. Weigh the jar before and after for correct consumption quantity. Use the baseline nut for your calorie counter.

Out of interest, does anybody know if this statement is still true for the med fat / med carb diet that the non-dieting population eat?