>A diet very high in fat and saturated fat adversely affects insulin sensitivity and thereby might contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes.
It's well established that sugars are responsible for type 2 diabetes.
>Isoenergetic 1000 kJ (240 kcal) servings of 38 foods separated into six food categories (fruits, bakery products, snack foods, carbohydrate-rich foods, protein-rich foods, breakfast cereals)
This is a badly designed study. It doesn't test the macro level satiety. It says "fat content" which I am going to presume is in the snack foods which are also high in semi-complex sugars.
The thing with all of these studies is that they are easy to try at home on yourself. It's well documented that the sugar industry paid to give fat a bad name but if you eat a high fat, plentiful protein and low carb diet for a month you will now the truth. You can feel it, you can see it.
> The study you linked talks about saturated fats.
True, saturated fat is probably the worst on this front, and unsaturated fat, if it comes packaged with things like vitamin e (to help prevent oxidation) might not be so bad.
> It's well established that sugars are responsible for type 2 diabetes.
No, it's actually not. This is a popular theory, but it's not very well supported. In terms of NAFLD, a strong contributer to insulin resistance, the worst offenders (in the context of a hyper-caloric diet ) are saturated fat and sugar (at 33% of the effect of sat. fat). Sugar only becomes bad when it's converted to fat, which only happens to a significant degree in hyper-caloric diets, when the liver can't dispose of the glucose quickly enough.
Your anecdotal evidence is nice and all, and may work for you, but is no substitute for meta-analysis of controlled studies.
