This is just a review article. To accurately evaluate their conclusions, you need to read the original sources and also find out which studies were excluded from the review and why. Review articles (especially those that don't employ meta-analysis) can be horribly biased.

Makes me wonder how it is the Tokelau islanders weren't insulin-resistant wrecks, given that they took 50% of their daily calories as saturated fat.

When I read studies like this, I usually think, "I wonder how they controlled for all the stuff they don't know yet." The answer is of course that they didn't, and likely didn't even properly control for what they did know. I wonder what the study's authors would say to the Tokelau data.

The first link is not a study at all. The second is an opinion piece that links to one study which shows no increase in insulin resistance on even a high fat high GI diet which is not at all paleo.

So at the moment this question/thread contains zero evidence to suggest that saturated fats worsen insulin resistance.

Which makes sense, as there is a large body of evidence to show that they do the opposite. Which also makes sense, as dietary fat has zero insulin response.

Copied from another web site: Insulin cannot do its job of driving sugar from the bloodstream into cells until it attaches on hooks on a cell's surface called insulin receptors. Eating too much fat and being fat decrease the number of insulin receptors and cause diabetes. Excess insulin production by the pancreas can also cause diabetes. Eating refined carbohydrates in sugar-added foods and drinks, bakery products and pastas calls out the most insulin and therefore increases risk for diabetes.

"as dietary fat has zero insulin response."

But as stated above, on Gabe Mirkin, M.D.'s web site, dietary fat decreases the number of insulin receptors!!!