> 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 thin

> 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. https://caloriecontrol.org/meta-analysis-of-sugar-and-type-2-diabetes-published/ https://caloriecontrol.org/meta-analysis-of-sugar-and-type-2...