This archived forum used to be called 'Peatarian' (in reference to Ray Peat).

High Fat Diets Cause Insulin Resistance (video)

asked Feb 4, 2015 by Westside PUFAs
edited Feb 4, 2015 by Westside PUFAs

^Ignore this. It doesn't take into consideration the type of fats.

Westside PUFAs posting his confirmation bias research once again.

I don't think the type of fat matters, and there is not evidence that even saturated fat causes insulin resistance -- NutritionFacts is a vegan propaganda site.

In addition, you also have to check that what they're showing is actually worse health. It's like saying saturated fats increases cholesterol, itself associated with heart disease, and concluding: butter causes heart disease!

@ all three of you,

I agree that Dr. Greger is a little too on the "plant based" side of things. Dr. Greger recently said that he has been "plant based" since 1990. But I found a video from 2008 where he is overweight. If he has been plant based for at that point, 18 years, why was he overweight? He's now lean but it is still weird.

Now, believe me, I am not happy about the possibility that saturated fat can cause diabetes. We all know PUFA is bad but saturated fat? Please, no. I would love to keep eating plenty of ice cream, cream cheese and sour cream on my potatoes, fatty cuts of beef, butter on everything, bacon (though high pufa), I would love to keep eating those foods. But if those foods are going to make me a diabetic then I have no choice but to limit them. I'm not willing to just keeping eating them, and then one day having to take diabetes drugs and/or injections.

You see, I'm not dogmatic. I'm not going to just accept that saturated fat is completely okay to eat large amounts of with no consequences. My experience has shown me otherwise as well. It was cheese, whole milk, and added cream to coffee and other things that caused me to gain fat.

Bobby Fatkins, IIRC, your fasting glucose was on the high side. And you other two, if you're not willing to post your fasting glucose then simply just saying "this is veg propaganda" doesn't address the actual claims, and you provide nothing, while claiming to eat high amounts of sat. fat. I'm trying to move away from being like that, because thats all I used to be when I had my blinders on. Be objective.

So what do you say about the multiple native tribes eating plenty of saturated fats, some of them having most of their caloric intake from them and never being fat or having diabetes? This video is completely useless and Greger is a typical propaganda vegan, I don't understand how someone can take this guy seriously.

care to provide studies of these "multiple native tribes eating plenty of saturated fats, some of them having most of their caloric intake from them and never being fat or having diabetes?" I'm serious. I'd love to see them.

@17 seconds into the video, the types of fats are shown for the first study. It is a mix of all three fats, poly, mono, and safa.

The Masai people instantly come to mind as ones mainly eating them. But pretty much every native tribe eats at least a decent amount of saturated fats. I'm not promoting a high fat diet by the way, I'm eating high carb personally, but I'm also eating as much fat as I want and don't look at restricting fats. Looking at macronutrients as for the cause of diabetes is definitely the wrong approach. I think it has a lot more to do with a lack of nutrition compared to ones caloric intake and personally I'd say eating high carb and very low-fat is more likely for an average Joe to result in diabetes than eating both in moderation, because its easy to eat tons of carbs without proper nutrition and people can easily not get enough minerals such as potassium, which are very important to properly 'utilize' them. But that topic is probably more something for pboy.


Sorry but those aren't studies. Those are not clinical trials.

Now, because I'm not dogmatic, I will not simply just say "Nope! Fuck The Weston Price crowd! I don't want to hear anything they have to say, especially when they are affiliated with the supplement companies Green Pasture, Vital Choice, and Radiant Life."

I won't say that. I'm open to all sources. Those "installments" by Masterjohn on the Massai are fun to read if one in interested in their culture. But they are not clinical trials.

The Greger crowd has responded to me and I posted the studies below. Don't be dogmatic and just say that it is propaganda. Actually debunk the studies. I'm going to force myself to start getting good at reading and interpreting studies. I have no choice anymore.

Booby Brackins, Zahc, and boxjack,

The studies from this video have been posted. Have at it. Or bury your heads in the sand.


This is not a video on heart disease. The subject is diabetes. You are diverting the conversation.

The Masai do not eat tons of fat while sitting around being lazy like the Westerners who use them as the poster children for the benefits of a high animal fat diet.

According to this study, the Masai are VERY physically active people, unlike most peatarians.

"There is strong evidence that the high consumption of animal fats increases the risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Many scientists have therefore been surprised that the nomadic Masai of Kenya and Tanzania are seldom afflicted by the disease, despite having a diet that is rich in animal fats and deficient in carbohydrates.

What sets the Masai lifestyle apart is also a very high degree of physical activity. The Masai studied expended 2,500 kilocalories a day more than the basic requirement, compared with 1,500 kilocalories a day for the farmers and 891 kilocalories a day for the urbanites. According to the team, most Westerners would have to walk roughly 20 km a day to achieve the Masai level of energy expenditure."

So the Masai walk about 12 miles per day. Look how slender they are. They are nothing like the typical peatarian, who is fat with bad skin and man boobs in spite of the hormones and massive does of supplements.

You are the first person to ever call me fat in my entire life. EVER, haha. At 6 ft. tall, 175.4 lbs I think most people would agree I am not fat, nor overweight.

Does the study say that the increased energy expenditure in Masai was totally explained by physical activity?

Is diabetes lower or higher in mainland Europe, in the Masai tribes, or in the USA earlier in the 20th Century? You have entire population using saturated fat in large quantities, where diabetes is virtually non existent. And physical activity? Please, go to a European city where gyms are relatively modern concept. Sorry, but traditional foods with butter and quality animal products may or may not be optimal from a Peat perspective, but it could be worse and you wouldn't be expected to have diabetes. Diabetes is an extremely rare occurrence in some places.

@WestsideGirl and IslandPUFAs: I don't care about studies. Who needs studies to see what causes diseases of civilization? The reason there's usually a completely contradictory study for another study (at least concerning diets and their roles in developing diseases) is the fact that they always look at very isolated things without keeping in mind everything else, so their results are pretty much useless. Thats why every food causes every disease and protects from them on the same time.

A look at a small group of happy people who literally don't know any of them is all I need and I take 100 times the amount of knowledge from them compared to useless studies. But it's definitely true the Masai people pretty much only eat their animals+milk and thus have a very high fat intake. It doesn't matter how physical active they are, it's just that the Masai people alone completely discard WhateverPUFAs title "high fat diets cause insulin resistence". Even if they'd do in combination with a very sedentary lifestyle, it would still be wrong to say fats cause insulin resistance. Not sure if you guys are a bit hazy from all the grains and beans you eat, but it's funny how you think one isolated thing causes something and then come with something entirely else (their activity component) as their savior of the evil insulin resistance.

8 Answers

He's got the biophysics wrong, thinking there are receptors, but eating enough fatty food does increase FFAs and hence insulin resistance, at least in people with endotoxin-overburdened livers or other sorts of estrogenic damage. Here's why:

1) Fatty food (with few exceptions) contains a significant amount of PUFAs and long chain saturated fat;

2) Even small amounts of PUFAs accumulate; and

3) More than a little long chain saturated fat is likely to be a greater burden on an already overburdened liver.

The good-news exception here is medium chain triglycerides, which are shunted off to be used more efficiently, and typically converted to the super-fuel of short chain saturated fatty acids. But too much of these irritates the intestine.

Be safe: Just avoid fatty foods. Keep the honey and orange juice in a spot where you can always reach it. Have a little MCT oil with food several times a day to bowel tolerance.

You don't need studies. You can prove it to yourself! Monitor your own blood glucose throughout the day to make sure you are getting good dips and rises. It's easy and cheap enough.

answered Feb 4, 2015 by visionofstrength

So there are no such things as insulin receptors? Where is your proof?

"but eating enough fatty food does increase FFAs and hence insulin resistance"

So you agree.

I don't really have an opinion, I'm just paraphrasing how I understand Peat and Ling. Please tell me if you think I'm wrong.

In their view, insulin (and glucose) are used by the cell (or not) based on gradients and redox potentials in the liquid crystal structure of the body.

Receptors, membrane pumps, genetics, or whatever popular misconception it goes by is (they think) a fraud that will collapse someday when good science acknowledges these errors, and then starts to make progress toward understanding biology.

Is this you: ?

I haven't gotten to the "gradients and redox potentials in the liquid crystal structure of the body" aspect yet. So I don't know how I feel about it.

I don't think it's my account there. I'm here:

[Edit: I just checked and user/VoS is me. Sorry, I must have duplicated the account during a brain fog!]


"3) More than a little long chain saturated fat is likely to be a greater burden on an already overburdened liver."

Saturated fats can be therapeutic for the liver. Including serious liver disease. Uncoupling, CO2,...all ways in which saturated fats help these liver cells.

Long chain saturated fats? Not sure why you mention them. Those are precisely chains I would want to eat, with the same proportion to shorter ones as found in dairy for example. Combination of lengths is a good thing.

boxjack, how is your health? do you measure your CO2 or blood glucose? If you feel like you're healthy, eat what you want!

But an overburdened liver can't process more than a little fat in the diet and it winds up spilling into the bloodstream as FFAs, with all the attendant damage. These FFAs are powerful signallers that bind to proteins in ways that slow metabolic rate.

MCTs are the exception, and can be shunted off quickly to be converted to the super-fuel of SCFAs.

I think you're wrong with your claims with liver and saturated fats (and I think Peat would disagree too seeing his articles). But we already discussed so lets skip this.

I measure the usual thyroid checklist, such TSH, body temperature, stable mood with willingness to interact and learn. I also use other indicators such as skin appearance (acne) and muscle efficiency (delayed muscle soreness), stability of muscles mass too. All these things are related to health, and therefore indirectly to CO2, but I don't measure CO2 directly myself. If I eat a good diet, it should show up positive on all these things. When I eat other diets, they indicators will definitely show bad - I'm not someone who is always okay whatever the diet.

I was just wondering if you feel you suffer from insulin resistance (which was the context of my comment). If you think you might have it, you can measure your blood glucose throughout the day to see how much variation you have from lowest measurement to the highest.

If the glucose variation is small, then you should find that the variation becomes greater (and insulin is used better) if you eat extremely low fat and keep a good supply of fruit sugars.

But of course, if you don't have insulin resistance then this would not apply to you.

Short Term Trials on Insulin Sensitivity -

These trials were commented on by Sanders:

"Insulin resistance is associated with the metabolic syndrome is believed to be a strong predictor of risk of CVD. A review by Reserus, Willett & Hu (53) suggested that SFA may have adverse effects on insulin release and glucose homoeostasis. However, this conclusion was based on a number of small trials; the only one major study that had addressed this question was the KANWU study (54). This reported an improvement in insulin sensitivity when SFA, mainly derived from animal fats and lard, were replaced by MUFA in the diet but the difference between treatments was of borderline significance. The RISCK study (30) found no evidence for adverse effects of SFA on insulin sensitivity nor did the LIPGENE (31) study or the study by Bos et al. (55). The current evidence suggests that there is probably no difference between SFA and MUFA on insulin resistance in human subjects" -

A recent study also found no effect, stating:

"Studies in animal models indicated that insulin sensitivity is impaired by diets high in SF [reviewed in (51–53)], and some human observational studies reported positive associations between SF intake and hyperinsulinemia, independent of body fat (54–58). However, in the majority of human intervention studies, changes in dietary fat quality had no effects on insulin sensitivity (52,53,59), including several large trials comparing replacement of monounsaturated fat for SF in the context of a higher fat diet. Our data support the evidence that high SF intake does not have a major impact on insulin sensitivity" -

Observational cohorts or studies with biomarkers of fat intake -

Four studies cited in this review found no association between saturated fat:

"Among four large prospective cohort studies, none found independent associations between consumption of either SFA (Fig. 4) or MUFA and onset of diabetes" -

Another review found no association between diabetes incidence and different fatty acids or for total fat intake -

A cohort last year found that high intakes of MUFA, total n-6 PUFA and total n-3 PUFA (ALA mostly) were associated with increased risk of diabetes, but no association was found for saturated fat or total fat -

A subgroup analysis (not a causal analysis) found that olive oil was associated with a lower incidence of diabetes compared with a lower fat diet -

More recently, high-fat dairy is not associated with risk of diabetes and saturated fat from dairy is in fact sometimes associated with a protective effect: - "Big Intake of High-Fat Dairy May Be Protective for Diabetes"

Trials on diabetes incidence:

More importantly, randomized trials show no effect on diabetes diagnosis by reducing total or saturated fat:

"No effects of dietary fat manipulation overall, or modifying or reducing dietary fat intake, were seen on risk of myocardial infarction, stroke or cancer diagnosis (GRADE moderate evidence, see Figure 7), nor non-fatal myocardial infarction, diabetes diagnosis or cancer deaths..." -

As to what may cause insulin resistance and diabetes, these posts by Stephan Guyenet may be of interest:

answered Feb 5, 2015 by Zahc
edited Feb 7, 2015 by Zahc

Thank you.

@Zahc, if you've read these studies, can you tell me if they assess increasing fatty acids of any type, or do they assess substituting fatty acids of one kind for another?

I despise reading studies, since I think they're all hopelessly misguided. But I suspect without reading, and your reference to Guyenet, that the studies talk about, as Guyenet does, only substituting one kind of fatty acid for another.

This, of course, misses the point of Ling's and Peat's theory of lipolysis, as Guyenet himself admits. Ling and Peat are not saying substitute one type of fatty acid in the diet for another; they're saying, if you have, or might have insulin resistance, reduce all FFAs (and starch) in the diet [i.e., with an exception for MCTs to bowel tolerance.]

Side note: do the studies you posted look at starch based endotoxemia as a companion cause, along with FFAs in the diet, of insulin resistance?

Guyenet acknowledges that he does not.

"This, of course, misses the point of Ling's and Peat's theory of lipolysis"

Sorry, I don't have knowledge of their theory , so I can't comment.

To me, it's a simple question: does saturated fat intake cause insulin resistance and diabetes when compared to other fatty acids or carbohydrates (lower fat diet)? The answer to me is clear from all the evidence I've provided, which is no.


I'm new to reading studies. I am starting to learn on how to objectively read and understand studies. So I will read what you posted. But at the same time, simply just saying "These studies do not show that eating saturated fat or fat in general causes insulin resistance or diabetes" does not actually tell my why that is true. I have to know why it is not true. Going forward, I am rejecting any mice/rat studies, and I am also going to reject studies that "follow" a group of people for an amount of time because they are relying on what those people "report." Those kinds of studies say nothing to me. What I am interested in, are clinical trials, clinical data.

@Zahc, you say "when compared to other fatty acids or carbohydrates (lower fat diet)"

According to Guyenet (from the blog you referenced), there's been no study of a zero fat diet (and good luck getting compliance from the subjects on that one); while at best there is some evidence, though more is needed, about substituting one fat for another.

But substituting fats is not the issue. It's zero fats that should matter for insulin resistance (other than MCTs, which convert to SCFAs).

FWIW, Guyenet is the author of a recent survey of the fatty acid literature. I think Kasra mentioned it here recently. Here are Guyenet's remarks about his own paper:
What This Paper Doesn't Mean

I want to be very clear about this. This paper does not mean that adding butter to all your food will make you lose fat or become healthier. In fact, if you do that you will most likely gain fat and become less healthy. Say what?? The studies we reviewed examined the role of high-fat dairy in the context of normal varied diet patterns. They did not compare people eating normally to people who put extra butter on everything, which is an excellent way to increase your calorie intake. Essentially they compared people eating high-fat dairy to people eating other types of fats as part of a mixed diet. The difference is subtle but critical to understand: addition vs. replacement.

So does this mean that replacing other types of fats with dairy fat (pasture-raised in particular), in the context of a normal varied diet, could lead to less fat gain and perhaps even better health over time? Perhaps. That is what the studies suggest overall. But again, these are observational studies with major limitations, so we'll have to wait for more evidence before we can hang our hats on the idea. In the meantime, it's clear that typical dietary recommendations to favor low-fat dairy over high-fat dairy are on thin ice.

"But substituting fats is not the issue. It's zero fats that should matter for insulin resistance"

Of course, lower fat does not imply extreme low fat intake. Nevertheless, the burden lies on those claiming that fat causes these problems and that a "zero" fat diet is better than one with fat. I agree with Guyenet's remarks.

There won't be any funded studies of extreme low fat diets, for obvious reasons -- no corporate profit motive.

But we don't need no stinking studies. You can convince yourself easily enough by monitoring your own blood glucose throughout the day, and measuring how well you utilize glucose by the variation in the readings. If you are utilizing it well, you'll have a big variation.

And if you don't have insulin resistance you may be able to gorge on all the fats you want, at least for now. But it may well catch up with you eventually, and you'll see your glucose readings start to lose the variation.


Many of these studies you posted are funded by the American Society for Nutrition.

Which studies?

I think you're confusing the publication with the funding: - "Supported by the UK Food Standards Agency " i.e. this was funded by the Food Standands Agency - "Supported by a contribution from the Dairy Research Cluster Initiative (Dairy Farmers of Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Dairy Network, and the Canadian Dairy Commission). The Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study is supported by National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute grants U01-HL47887, U01-HL47889, U01-HL47892, U01-HL47902, DK-29867, and R01-58329 and grant M01-RR-43 from the NIH. IDS is
supported by the University of Toronto Banting & Best Diabetes Centre, Tamarack Graduate Award in Diabetes Research, and Dairy Farmers of Canada (Ontario Student Opportunity Trust Funds)". - "This research has received full or partial funding support from the American Heart Association, Founders Affiliate (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont)" - This study is the KANWU study which found no significant difference between diets, so I'm not sure what the point is.

I love watching you work man.

There's the Tokelau whose traditional diet is high in saturated fat, specifically coconut fat. You can google the Tokelau Migrant Study and you'll get a ton of hits, a few I found that looked at diabetes specifically, but below is a summary of it.

The Tokelau Island Migrant Study: Background and Overview

"There are two reasons why the Tokelau Island Migrant study is unique. First, it's one of the best-documented transitions from a traditional to a modern lifestyle, studied over decades on Tokelau and in New Zealand. Regular visits by physicians recorded the health of the population as it shifted from a relatively traditional diet to a more Western one. The second thing that makes this population unique is they traditionally have an extraordinarily high saturated fat intake from coconut. They derive between 54 and 62 percent of their calories from coconut, which is 87% saturated. This gives them perhaps the highest documented saturated fat intake in the world. This will be a test of the "diet-heart hypothesis", the idea that dietary fat, cholesterol and especially saturated fat contribute to cardiovascular disease!"

"The varying cultures and resource bases of islands in the Pacific have influenced the degree to which their populations have been modernized and thus exposed to Western diseases. At one end of the spectrum are relatively traditional subsistence societies such as those on Tokelau and on the low islands- for example Pukapuka, Manihiki, and Rakahanga in the Northern Cook Islands. These atolls are characterized by the almost complete absence of soil, by the inhabitants' dependence on coconut in varied forms, and by a bountiful supply of fish as a major part of the traditional diet. Their populations are notable for their low levels of blood pressure, high rates of infectious disease, and low rates of coronary heart disease, obesity and diabetes. At the other end of the spectrum are those Polynesian societies, such as the Hawaiians and the Maori of New Zealand, who were submerged by 'Western' settlers and the dominating cultures they brought with them. These populations have inevitably acquired the diseases of the 'West', sometimes to an exaggerated degree."

answered Feb 4, 2015 by Jennifer
edited Feb 4, 2015 by Jennifer

Double posted by accident.

Same thing I said to kiwi. Nice for interest in a certain culture but these are not clinical trials.

He said "That quote could have been straight out of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, despite being published 60 years later." I want to run as far away as I can from anything WAP related. Let's talk about clinical trials on humans. Not tribal people, or mice/rat studies.

He also said this:

"There are two reasons why the Tokelau Island Migrant study is unique. First, it's one of the best-documented transitions from a traditional to a modern lifestyle, studied over decades on Tokelau and in New Zealand. Regular visits by physicians recorded the health of the population as it shifted from a relatively traditional diet to a more Western one. The second thing that makes this population unique is they traditionally have an extraordinarily high saturated fat intake from coconut. They derive between 54 and 62 percent of their calories from coconut, which is 87% saturated. This gives them perhaps the highest documented saturated fat intake in the world. This will be a test of the "diet-heart hypothesis", the idea that dietary fat, cholesterol and especially saturated fat contribute to cardiovascular disease!"

Like I said, google the study and you'll get a bunch of hits.

Coconut fat is one of the few exceptions because it's more than half medium chain fat, which I referred to obliquely above. So Jennifer, Dewitt and I are all pretty much on the same page, I think! What are the chances?!

The diabetogenic effect of high-fat diets seems to depent strongly on overall energy balance and level of physical activity (as well as some genetic factors etc.).

However, there is a lot of evidence pointing toward a general diabetogenic effect of free fatty acids. Inhibitors of lipolysis have been found to increase glucose tolerance, whereas lipolytic hormones like HGH decrease glucose tolerance in many studies.

Despite the lipolytic effects of exercise, it [exercise] appears to be protective. I haven't bothered reading papers on the exact relationship (studies about exercise bore me), but I think this is likely to be attributed to increased aerobic capacity.

answered Feb 5, 2015 by Dewitt

Agree. Nicely said, with references to conventional science. I try to write without those if I can, and stick more to the lingo of Ling, so that in a hundred years from now, scientists will think I was ahead of my time. :)

I don't think Ling's views are incompatible with conventional science. The implications are similar, sometimes identical. Whether you attribute the effect of insulin to its interaction with an "abstract" receptor or to the unfolding of receptive proteins (allowing influx of glucose etc.), the observations of its relationship to diet and exercise are the same. It also doesn't change the implications of the Randle Cycle much (particulary since it occurs without the influence of insulin).

I don't mean the things you said are wrong. I just want to give credit where I can to Ling and Peat, our two greatest living (or dead) scientists, who are all but unknown.

Ling believes that the invention of a useful product can only follow the understanding of the relevant underlying science. For him, the understanding of a complicated basic science does not happen all at once. Rather, like a tree, basic scientific knowledge grows in reach and in depth with time. Each time the understanding of a basic science grows deeper and farther-reaching, more sophisticated useful products may become feasible and be created.

And then Peat provides vivid examples, such as the way in which, with long range ordering (impossible in conventional science), estrogen can be understood to interfere with the respiratory cycle, ultimately leading even to the inefficiencies of the so-called Randall cycle.
I believe that estrogen's "principle," in all of its actions, is to interfere with the respiratory mode of energy production. This is an integrating principle that explains estrogen's immediate, direct effects on cells and organisms, which aren't explained by the idea that it acts on the genes through a specific "estrogen receptor." (It's hard to imagine, for example, how the "estrogen receptor" doctrine could explain the fact that a single injection of estrogen can kill a large portion of brain cells.) It explains why estrogen causes cells to take up water, allowing calcium to enter, activating various enzymes and cell division. On the organismic level, it explains why estrogen mimics "shock," releasing histamine and activating the nervous and glandular stress response system. The inefficiency of metabolism which doesn't use oxygen in the normal way causes glucose to be used rapidly, and this in itself is enough to trigger the release of pituitary ACTH and adrenal cortisol. The ACTH, and related hormones, liberate free fatty acids, which cells take up instead of glucose, and this (in the so-called Randall cycle) further limits the body's ability to oxidize glucose.

Do they pay attention to the effects of the type of fat? I.e., the effects of a high saturated fat vs. a high polyunsaturated fat diet?

answered Feb 4, 2015 by Anon

@17 seconds into the video, the types of fats are shown for the first study. It is a mix of all three fats, poly, mono, and safa.

Me: "Dr. Greger, where can I find the studies that you have on this video so I can read them myself? You did not say anything about the type of fat. Thanks."

We'll see if he responds. You can see the studies on the top left of the screen in the video but I'd rather have him provide the links.


Silly of me to not simply look to the right of the video, although that's because I originally watched the video on YT and not on his site.

"Rob: To the right of the video is a button called, "Sources Cited". Click that to see a list of the studies referenced in the video."

Free fatty acids and skeletal muscle insulin resistance.

Dietetic factors influencing the glucose tolerance and the activity of insulin

Mechanism of free fatty acid-induced insulin resistance in humans.

Overnight lowering of free fatty acids with Acipimox improves insulin resistance and glucose tolerance in obese diabetic and nondiabetic subjects.


Intramyocellular lipid concentrations are correlated with insulin sensitivity in humans: a 1H NMR spectroscopy study.

Rapid impairment of skeletal muscle glucose transport/phosphorylation by free fatty acids in humans.

Effects of an overnight intravenous lipid infusion on intramyocellular lipid content and insulin sensitivity in African-American versus Caucasian adolescents.

answered Feb 4, 2015 by Westside PUFAs
edited Feb 4, 2015 by Westside PUFAs

These studies do not show that eating saturated fat or fat in general causes insulin resistance or diabetes.

What would be relevant here is short term trials on humans eating saturated fat with measures of insulin resistance, observational studies (preferably cohorts or studies with reliable biomarkers of fat intake) testing associations between saturated fat and diabetes incidence, and randomized trials with one group eating more saturated fat than the other with diabetes incidence as an endpoint.

These studies have been done already and all failed to show any relation between saturated fat and insulin resistance or diabetes. I'm not on my PC at the moment where I have all the references, but will post them tomorrow.

I look forward to seeing the references. In the meantime, what do you think is the cause of type two diabetes?

westside PUFAs - just going from the very basics of things - IMBALANCE causes diabetes. but if you want to get into more specifics (and i've commented the same on one of your diabetes posts in the past) that a lot of the research points to free fatty acids of poly fats to be a major contributor to insulin resistance. but i'm not sure that it's so much the free poly fats which cause diabetes, but not meeting the demands of your body during lipolysis. again - it always simply comes back to balancing in most cases. in most cases, you don't have to read studies or textbooks or articles to understand what causes or doesn't cause things. all of us who have read Peat and been around for a while should have all the info. we need to compliment our own process of awareness. i wouldn't try to find a macronutrient that causes diabetes because that's not the way it works.

@all of you who said that the type of fat was not mentioned in the video, in the comments section of his video today, someone asked him:

"there was no mention of the types of fat. So should I stop taking fish oil? Should I stop eating coconut oil? Dr. Atkins is turning over in his grave."

and he said: "That's my next video--stay tuned!"

answered Feb 6, 2015 by Westside PUFAs

Saturated fat does not cause diabetes. That is absurd and anyone who knows anything about nutrition or the body knows that without having to read a study on it. It does make sense, however, that a high saturated fat diet would cause problems like diabetes - much like a high carb diet. I don't know why these kinds of posts even appear anymore in the peat-o-sphere - it seems like moving in reverse.

answered Feb 7, 2015 by Nicholas


You smoke cigarettes, you're overweight, and you take advice from Josh Rubin. Advice that you PAID him for! Hahaha! Why should I listen to you?

This isn't the "Peatosphere." This is a website that a guy from Belgium named Bruno owns, and where about 15-20 people actively use and comment, while about 100-200 occasionally click through but don't comment. It's nothing.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

"I'll put myself out there once I look how I want to look."
- Westside PUFAs.

I'm sure Josh Rubin looks (and is) healthier than you.

yes - and you are turning it into a shithole with your very persistently negative and dogmatic posts. the things you write confuse me very much because it's as if you're writing on a mainstream nutrition board - nothing you write is in sync in any way with anything Peat. My only reason for posting nowadays is to resist the way the site is becoming very misguided. but somehow i sense that you are doing that intentionally. i'd say it's the nail in the coffin for me. and i'm not a dude, either.

no I'm not as fat as him. and the difference is that i admit it. he denies it to being "stockey." I'm not dogmatic. you guys are. both of your responses to this original post prove that you are dogmatic. I'm the one who is searching for the truth.

also, eating a diet high in potatoes, and fruit that avoids "heart healthy" oils is not mainstream at all.

your way of thinking about the body and nutrition is mainstream and confused. you are searching for truth in the wrong way and you refuse to open your eyes. if you want to remain in that confusion and spread that confusion then you have every right to. the fact that you seem to be doing it intentionally and persistently is all that bothers me.