So we know that saturated fat (esp palmitic acid) induces physiological insulin resistance. We also know that this isn't a bad thing when you're eating reasonably low carb- it's a positive adaptation, turning away limited carbohydrate from muscles and allowing it to be used efficiently by the brain. What I'm wondering therefore, is whether this has any significance for eating saturated fat with a post-workout meal, where I'm eating a small amount of carbohydrate to aid recovery. In theory, wouldn't inducing insulin resistance in my muscles be preciely what I don't want to do, if I want a limited amount of insulin to refill my muscle glycogen.
Intuitively, I'm sure this isn't a massive problem. Clearly HG's suffered no serious harm eating their SFA-heavy kill (nor from eating carb post-exertion either), but since we have the luxury of being able to stick to just MUFA or coconut post-workout, what would be optimal?
One thing that seems worth noting is that our muscles would be more insulin sensitive anyway post-workout, so this would somewhat offset matters. Also, perhaps I'm being overly simplistic in assuming that eating SFA induces universal insulin resistance. In his series, Peter talks as though this is the case, but he also talks as though muscles become specifically insulin resistance if they have taken up fatty acids themselves. In this case, would muscle fibres be lacking in fat as well as glycogen post-workout and therefore be insulin sensitive regardless?
The other thing I was wondering, is that Peter says in various places that "muscle runs well on lipids," yet lots of people also say that for recovery post-workout (and optimal growth) muscles really need protein/carb and that intense exercise really needs muscles to have substantial glycogen stores, not just a source of fat.