Niacin and blood sugar

We've been engaging in a conversation on the Track Your Plaque Forum on whether niacin raises blood sugar.

Yes, it does. In the vast majority of instances, however, the rise is trivial and without consequence. Typically, someone will start with a borderline elevated blood sugar of, say, 108 mg/dl. Niacin, 1000 mg per day, then raises blood sugar to 112 mg/dl. This small increase does not oblige any specific action, nor does it pose any excess risk.

Blood sugars in the normal range of <100 mg/dl tend not to show this effect. Higher blood sugars, e.g., 130 mg/dl, may show a more exagerrated effect but it is also rarely of great consequence. People who take medications for adult type II diabetes, or people with childhood-onset, type I diabetes will also experience rises in blood sugar. This is a somewhat larger issue in these people.

Niacin is best undertaken with a change in diet, specifically a reduction in processed carbohydrate foods, particularly evil and ubiquitous wheat products.This will often compensate for the blood sugar effect.

Niacin also shares many of the benefits of weight loss: rise in HDL, drop in triglycerides and small LDL.

Keep it all in perspective: If HDL is low, e.g., 30 mg/dl, or there is a significant small LDL pattern, or you have Lp(a), using niacin--vitamin B3--is quite safe and the most effective treatment we have. It's also a vitamin. Also recall the famous HATS Trial of simvastatin and niacin: simvastatin (Zocor) reduced heart attack risk 30%; adding niacin reduced heart attack risk an astounding 90%.

Very few strategies can yield the enormous benefits, both as a stand-alone treatment or in combination with others, that niacin can, whether or not blood sugar creeps up a few milligrams.

Comments (14) -

  • Anonymous

    9/19/2007 4:05:00 PM |

    Hi greg here- I 've posted before about diet. Just wondering how that is going at your other site. I think you were going to have something up soon.
    Thanks!

  • Dr. Davis

    9/19/2007 4:19:00 PM |

    Hi, Greg--

    It probably won't happen for 6-8 weeks. It's in the queue of projects.

  • Anonymous

    9/19/2007 4:30:00 PM |

    Is iron monitored as part of the Track Your Plaque program? What is a good level for men?

    Brian

  • Anonymous

    9/19/2007 4:31:00 PM |

    Is iron monitored as part of the Track Your Plaque program? What is a good level for men?

    Brian

  • Anonymous

    9/19/2007 4:40:00 PM |

    Thanks.
    I have a couple questions in the meantime.
    - On a low carb diet should I be concerned about the quality of meat I eat? I know grass-fed beef meat is better for me but expensive. Many people talk about the benefit of low carb and eating meat but WalMart meat is different from grass-fed for sure.
    - Also, organic veggies/fruits/dairy are better for me- or so they say- but expensive- what to do?
    - Also- as I said before I had success on South Beach but have gained all of the  weight back since adding in carbs some "healthy" some refined... they do seem to get addictive.
    Any advice other than avoiding them. Any success stories that you know of.
    Thanks!Greg

  • G, clinical pharmacist

    9/19/2007 5:55:00 PM |

    HI DR. Davis,

    I've really enjoyed your blog and your insights!  What are your thoughts on the negative effects of ACEs, betablockers and drugs like thiazides and sulfonylureas?  One of our prominent rheumatologists believe these meds (which are used at a 'quartet' for preventing CAD at the org that I work at) raises the ANA and other autoimmune titres.
    Thank you and strong work!!

  • G, clinical pharmacist

    9/19/2007 6:42:00 PM |

    btw, my middle name is 'vit D3 oil gelcap only' now!  thank you again for sharing!

  • Anonymous

    9/19/2007 7:36:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis, the same HATS trial that showed the large beneficial effects of statin-niacin combination also showed that a combination of antioxidants significantly blunts these effects. The antioxidant combination they used consisted of 800 IU of vitamin E (as d-alpha-tocopherol), 1000 mg of vitamin C, 25 mg of natural beta carotene, and 100 µg of selenium. Unfortunately none of the antioxidants was tested seperately.

    Is there any data that shows which of these anitoxidants was responsible for the reduced effectiveness of the statin-niacin combination? Do you advocate the use of any of these antioxidants for a person taking a statin-niacin combination, and if so, how much and why?

  • Dr. Davis

    9/19/2007 8:08:00 PM |

    LOL! That's great.

  • Dr. Davis

    9/19/2007 8:11:00 PM |

    I have a problem with thiazides and beta blockers, principally because of the HDL-reducing, small LDL-increasing effects. Also thiazides drop magnesium and potassium. I personally despite the thiazide diuretics and stop them every chance I get.

    Drugs have a place, as you know, but they are often used for the wrong reasons and without full knowledge of their negative potential. Vitamin D is a great anti-hypertensive, as is avoidance of wheat products.

  • Dr. Davis

    9/19/2007 8:19:00 PM |

    Unfortunately, there is very little independent verification of this effect outside of the HATS Trial. A similar effect was seen, for instance, in the ATBC Trial.

    I do not recommend willy-nilly use of antioxidants for their own sake, but for selected applications outside of antioxidation, e.g., coQ10 for statin muscle aches, vit C for Lp(a).

  • Dr. Davis

    9/19/2007 9:14:00 PM |

    No. We do not monitor iron.

  • G

    9/19/2007 9:14:00 PM |

    I was afraid you say that!! (we give a lot of thiazides d/t ALLHAT)  I'm not sure about Vit D as a BP med (but I'll take your word)...  Vit D in the first yr of life 2000 IU/d (don't know what form) significantly prevented Type 1 DM in a large Finnish study (see below).  And I just read in the latest AACE 2007 DM guidelines that early exposure to wheat gluten (yeah, your favorite food) may increase Type 1 Diabetes risks.

    THANK YOU for your response!

    Hypponen E, Laara E, Reunanen A, et al. Intake of vitamin D and risk of type 1 diabetes: a birth-cohort study. Lancet 2001;358:1500-3.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 12:22:10 PM |

    Very few strategies can yield the enormous benefits, both as a stand-alone treatment or in combination with others, that niacin can, whether or not blood sugar creeps up a few milligrams.

Loading
Your heart scan is just a "false positive"

Your heart scan is just a "false positive"

I've seen this happen many times. Despite the great media exposure and the growing acceptance of my colleagues, heart scans still trigger wrong advice. I had another example in the office today.

Henry got a CT heart scan in 2004. His score: 574. In his mid-50s, this placed him in the 90th percentile, with a heart attack risk of 4% per year. Henry was advised to see a cardiologist.

The cardiologist advised Henry, "Oh, that's just a 'false positive'. It's not true. You don't have any heart disease. Sometimes calcium just accumulates on the outside of the arteries and gives you these misleading tests. I wish they'd stop doing them." He then proceeded to advise Henry that he needed a nuclear stress test every two years ($4000 each time, by the way). No attempt was made to question why his heart scan score was high, since the entire process was outright dismissed as nonsense.

I'm still shocked when I hear this, despite having heard these inane responses for the past decade. Of course, Henry's heart scan was not a false positive, it was a completely true positive. I'm grateful that nothing bad happened to Henry through two years of negligence, though his heart scan score is likely around 970, given the expected, untreated rate of increase of 30%.

The cardiologist did a grave disservice to Henry: He misled him due to his ignorance and lack of understanding. I wish Henry had asked the cardiologist whether he had read any of the thousands of studies now available validating CT heart scans. I doubt he's bothered to read more than the title. The cardiologist is lucky (as is Henry) that nothing bad happened in those two years.

Do false positives occur as the cardiologist suggested? They do, but they're very rare. There's a rare phenomenon of "medial calcification" that occurs in smokers and others, but it is quite unusual. >99% of the time, coronary calcium means you have coronary plaque--even if the doctor is too poorly informed to recognize it.
Loading
"You can't reduce coronary plaque"

"You can't reduce coronary plaque"

"I told my cardiologst that I stumbled on a program called 'Track Your Plaque' that claims to be able to help reduce your coronary calcium score.

"My cardiologist said, 'That's impossible. You cannot reduce coronary plaque. I've never seen anyone reduce a heart scan score."

Who's right here?

The commenter is right; the cardiologist is wrong.

I would predict that the cardiologist is among the conventionally-thinking, "statins drugs are the only solution" group who follows his patients over the years to determine when a procedure is finally "needed." In fact, I know many of these cardiologists personally. The primary care physicians are completely in the dark, usually expressing an attitude of helplessness and submitting to the "wisdom" of their cardiology consultants.

Quantify and work to reduce the atherosclerotic plaque? No way! That's work, requires thinking, some sophisticated testing (like lipoprotein testing), even some new ideas like vitamin D. "They didn't teach that to me in medical school (back in 1980)!"

Welcome to the new age.

Atherosclerotic plaque is 1) measurable, 2) trackable, and 3) can be reduced.

We do it all the time. (Amy still holds our record: 63% reduction in plaque/heart scan score.)

Though I pooh-pooh the value of statin drug studies, there's even data from the conventional statin world documenting coronary plaque reversal. The ASTEROID Trial of rosuvastatin (Crestor), 40 mg per day for one year, demonstrated 7% reduction of atherosclerotic plaque using intracoronary ultrasound.

I have NEVER seen a heart attack or appearance of heart symptoms (angina, unstable angina) in a person who has reversed coronary plaque (unless, of course, they pitched the whole effort and returned to bad habits--that has happened). Stick to the program and coronary risk, for all practical purposes, been eliminated.

A heart scan score is not a death sentence. It is simply a tool to empower your prevention program, a measuring stick to gauge plaque progression, stabilization, or regression. Don't accept anything less.

Comments (9) -

  • Angela

    5/10/2009 3:17:00 PM |

    "They didn't teach that to me in medical school (back in 1980)!"

    Unfortunately vitamin d is not mentioned in med school nowadays except for osteoporosis prevention...

    Dr. Davis -- thank you for your blog. I am a med student interested in REAL evidence based medicine (which makes me a bit unpopular between my teachers).

    I researched vitamin D after reading your blog, and decided to mega-dose on it. It's been 4 weeks now and my "inespecified mood disorder" (never met criteria for depression, but have never been really "well" since I was 16) is GONE. Like a "veil" has fallen or something. PMS is gone as well.Now I have discovered that the periods of my life in which I felt truly well were when I spent outside most of the day (I live in the mediterranean coast).

    I also had a single attack of MS some years ago, so vitamin D will help to prevent full blown multiple sclerosis.

    My comment is in no way related with atherosclerosis, but I just wanted to thank you, and congratulate you for having found a way to help people outside conventional medicine. I feel greatly inspired by your work.

    Regards,

    Angela Nicolas

  • antidrugrep

    5/10/2009 7:59:00 PM |

    "primary care physicians are completely in the dark"

    For the record, we aren't ALL in the dark. In fact, I stumbled across your website a few years ago as I was looking for supportive testimony from other practitioners who saw things clearly. In fact, I watched as you "caught up" with the idea of adding Vitamin K2 to your regimen - presumably based on the results of the 2004 Rotterdam Study.

    I hate to sound defensive, but such a sweeping generalization is uncharacteristically irrational of your posts up to now. Perhaps you haven't known any primary care "grunts" without a cranial suppository.

    Now you know at least one.

  • Kismet

    5/10/2009 9:43:00 PM |

    I guess it's just a matter of time until someone breaks the record again?

    I know you have talked highly of vitamin K2, I'm wondering if you've made it a staple of the TYP program already? I think there's all reason to do so.
    Below two studies using high doses of K1, but it should work via conversion to K2 (the epidemiology of K2 hints at the same phenomenon).

    Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Apr 22. [Epub ahead of print]
    Vitamin K supplementation and progression of coronary artery calcium in older men and women.
    Shea MK, O'Donnell CJ, Hoffmann U, Dallal GE, Dawson-Hughes B, Ordovas JM, Price PA, Williamson MK, Booth SL.

    One of THE most impressive studies I've ever read:
    Thromb Haemost. 2004 Feb;91(2):373-80.
    Beneficial effects of vitamins D and K on the elastic properties of the vessel wall in postmenopausal women: a follow-up study.
    Braam LA, Hoeks AP, Brouns F, Hamulyák K, Gerichhausen MJ, Vermeer C.

  • pmpctek

    5/11/2009 4:10:00 AM |

    Over the last year, I have seen about a dozen physicians (for a reason other than heart disease).

    Be they a GP, cardiologist, pulmonologist, oncologist, or hematologist, they all tell me the same thing; we all "naturally" develop coronary plague as we age and that it can only be minimally "managed" by lowering our cholesterol with -insert your statin drug here.

    Every time I reply with; there is nothing natural about having calcified plaque build up in our coronary arteries at any age and that it can be very effectively managed by following Dr. Davis' "Track Your Plaque" protocol. (As I pull out your book to show them.)

    The physician then usually looks at me like I have two heads and dismisses me by standing up to signal that the visit is over.  Except for one physician, honestly, who responded by reaching for his script pad and saying that he would like to start me on an antidepressant medication right away... lmao.

    I have now given up looking for any local physician who would be willing to help me in any way with the heart scan/track-your-plaque program.

  • Dr. William Davis

    5/12/2009 1:06:00 AM |

    Antidrugrep--

    Actually, that generalization was intended principally for the sorts of primary care docs who wouldn't read a blog like this. You are clearly the exception.

    If you had responded that most cardiologists are knuckleheads out for a buck, I would have agreed, too.

  • Dr. William Davis

    5/12/2009 1:08:00 AM |

    Kismet--

    Thanks for the references. I hadn't seen the Shea study; the findings are interesting.

    We haven't had enough people have pre-K2 and post-K2 heart scans, so it's hard to know what effect it ADDS to the existing battery of strategies. Nonetheless, K2 is definitely on the list of most promising. Given its benign nature, I do encourage people to add it, though dosing remains entirely uncertain.

  • Anonymous

    6/2/2009 1:25:26 PM |

    I seem to be developing atherosclerosis at age 26 and I've been doing a lot of research. B12 and Vitamin D are related, but you should also be aware of magnesium. See the study at Comparison of Mechanism and Functional Effects of Magnesium and Statin Pharmaceuticals. In this study they basically explain how magnesium works as a natural statin and calcium channel blocker. If you do further research online you may become convinced, as I am, that magnesium deficiency is just as widespread as Vitamin D deficiency.

    You need to take a chelated form of magnesium, such as glycinate, because other forms (like magnesium oxide) are poorly absorbed by the body and not worth the money.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:34:52 PM |

    I would predict that the cardiologist is among the conventionally-thinking, "statins drugs are the only solution" group who follows his patients over the years to determine when a procedure is finally "needed." In fact, I know many of these cardiologists personally. The primary care physicians are completely in the dark, usually expressing an attitude of helplessness and submitting to the "wisdom" of their cardiology consultants.

  • Anonymous

    12/15/2010 7:58:47 PM |

    Worst thing you can do is use the tobacco drug, either by smoking or through spit tobacco.

    Also, being exposed to toxic tobacco smoke (sometimes called second-hand or environmental tobacco smoke) is EXTREMELY Dangerous! Make sure you work to BAN SMOKING EVERYWHERE, INDOORS OR OUT!

    Better yet, BAN THE TOBACCO DRUG, NOW!

Loading
Fish oil for $780 per bottle

Fish oil for $780 per bottle

At prevailing pharmacy prices, one capsule of prescription Lovaza fish oil costs $4.33 each.

Yes, you heard right: $4.33 per capsule.

What do you get for $4.33 per capsule? By omega-3 fatty acid content, you get 842 mg EPA + DHA per capsule.

I can also go to Sam's Club and buy a bottle of their Triple-Strength fish oil with 900 mg omega-3 fatty acids per capsule at $18.99 per bottle of 180 capsules. That comes to 10.5 cents per capsule. That puts the price of fish oil from Sam's Club at 97.6% less cost compared to Lovaza for an equivalent quantity of omega-3 fatty acids.

What if we repriced Sam's Club's Triple-Strength and brought it "in line" with what we pay for Lovaza? That would put the value of one bottle of Sam's Club Triple-Strength fish oil at $780 per bottle.

I take patients off Lovaza every chance I get.

Comments (16) -

  • Cathy

    8/19/2009 10:31:05 PM |

    Thanks for that.  I still take Lovaza; have been lazy about switching.  I just checked the price my mail-order pharmacy pays and it's $546 per bottle of 120, or just over $1.50 per capsule.  While considerably less than what you quoted, it's still $6 per day and $2185 per year!  I'd no idea.  Plus I take Niaspan for another $900 per year.  I'm switching to OTC for both.  No wonder insurance rates are going up!

  • John Smith

    8/19/2009 11:16:18 PM |

    It's amazing how much some of these companies will try to scam people with 'pharmacy grade' vitamins. It's easy for me to tell how much fish oil is oxidized by taste and how well it works and the best brand I've found is from trader joe's for 8 bucks a bottle. For stuff like vitamin C the process is so simple it's pretty much literally impossible to have any real difference brand to brand aside from how absorbable it is and again it's easy to tell when pills are not absorbing due to how they feel.

  • Clamence

    8/20/2009 12:26:19 AM |

    And we wonder why healthcare costs are spiraling out of control in america...

    What's sad, is the problem isn't limited to just pharmaceuticals, so many other areas like diagnostic imaging and durable medical goods are so much more expensive than they should be.

  • Dr. William Davis

    8/20/2009 1:40:55 AM |

    Do your part to reduce healthcare costs: Reject the idea that fish oil, niacin, and vitamin D should be costly prescription agents.

    Pay for them yourself for SUPERIOR preparations that you can obtain without a prescription. This small effort alone will save us all hundreds of millions of dollars.

  • Nameless

    8/20/2009 3:04:42 AM |

    Anyone know when Lovaza is going generic? I thought I read that perhaps by end of the year their exclusivity may be up, which should open up cheap prescription alternatives -- and sort of kill Lovaza's profits too.

  • Anonymous

    8/20/2009 3:09:24 AM |

    I use otc niacin at about $3 a bottle, and one of the doctors I work with asked me why I hadn't asked my doc for a prescription for Niaspan.
    I just didnt know where to begin.

    Jeanne

  • Anne

    8/20/2009 7:54:19 AM |

    Wow - I'm so surprised that there are worries about a national health care service in the US such as we have in the UK. Here, Lovaza (Omacor) costs the National Health Service £50 for 100 capsules, ie 50p per capsule !

    Of course that's not what patients pay. Patients who are charged prescription charges will pay  Â£7.20 per prescription of 100 capsules, and patients who don't pay prescriptions charges at all (approx 70% of patients), well they don't pay anything for their Lovaza....they have paid in their taxes for it already.

    But to me the biggest surprise is that the pharmacutical company that makes Lovaza charges so much less in the UK than it does in the US !

    Anne

  • Richard A.

    8/20/2009 6:32:00 PM |

    Another way to save on prescription drugs--pill splitting. Too often the smaller dose costs almost as much as the bigger dose. Getting the bigger pill and cutting it down to smaller doses can save a lot of money.

  • pyker

    8/20/2009 9:09:30 PM |

    I'm surprised we don't see scrips for "pharmaceutical-grade water", to wash these down.

  • Anonymous

    8/21/2009 2:21:12 AM |

    pyker, its called "bottled water"

  • JLL

    8/25/2009 1:38:15 PM |

    It's not really a problem that pharmacy grade fish oil is ridiculously expensive, as long as it's not illegal to sell cheaper fish oils too.

    In Europe, the trend seems to be that supplements are becoming available only in pharmacies, which can then charge extraordinary prices for everything.

  • Boris

    9/7/2009 1:22:32 PM |

    I have moderately high triglycerides at 255. My physician gave me a sample bottle of Lovazza to try which has 28 softgels. I have been taking one softgel a day.

    I have been looking into OTC fish oil supplements. Some are very diluted and some are very concentrated. Most break down the EPA and DHA content while others don't. I created a spreadsheet that collects the EPA and DHA content of several OTC fish oil supplement. In order to make a fair comparison, I adjusted my serving size for each brand name to give me about the same quantity of the essential fatty acids. The prices range from $0.11 per dosage to $1.76 per dosage.

    So once I figured out what's the most cost effective brand to buy now I have to worry and wonder about purity. Am I getting a less refined formula that will have heavy metals, PCBs, and other nasty chemicals? The words "triple distilled" mean nothing to me. I'd like to see "Contains no more than 0.010 PPM of arsenic" or something like that.

    The Lovazza might have the advantage here since the FDA probably won't let poisoned fish oil out. I have no idea what my effective price per dosage is with Lovazza since my sample bottle was free. My company takes a decent chunk of my pay for health care and I rarely use it. Maybe it's time I get my money's worth and get some subsidized Lovazza?

  • trinkwasser

    9/10/2009 2:51:21 PM |

    "I'm surprised we don't see scrips for "pharmaceutical-grade water", to wash these down."

    What, like this?

    http://www.marksdailyapple.com/bling-water/

  • Boris

    9/30/2009 4:29:47 PM |

    My one month experiment with Lovaza is over. I received a free sample bottle with 28 capsules last month from my physician. The recommended dosage was four a day but he told me to take one. I did that for one month. My triglycerides went down from 255 to 135 with no significant change in diet. My total cholesterol went down from 221 to 177, and it was all LDL. Unfortunately, my HDL levels stayed almost the same.

    So do I continue with Lovaza and get a prescription or do I get a high quality OTC like Omapure?

    I will see my physician tomorrow.

    Decisions, decisions, decisions!

  • moblogs

    3/24/2010 12:59:07 AM |

    Just want to add that Omacor (European Lovaza) costs £2 per day, while Triple Strength Omega 3 from a reputable company costs 12p per day in comparison, for roughly the same amount of EPA and DHA. You just have to take 6 capsules instead of 4.
    My jaw would've dropped if I hadn't been getting my vitamin D! Smile

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 9:50:53 PM |

    I can also go to Sam's Club and buy a bottle of their Triple-Strength fish oil with 900 mg omega-3 fatty acids per capsule at $18.99 per bottle of 180 capsules. That comes to 10.5 cents per capsule. That puts the price of fish oil from Sam's Club at 97.6% less cost compared to Lovaza for an equivalent quantity of omega-3 fatty acids.

Loading
Genetic vs. lifestyle small LDL

Genetic vs. lifestyle small LDL

Let me explain what I mean by "genetic small LDL." I think it helps to illustrate with two common examples.

Ollie is 50 years old, 5 ft 10 inches tall, and weighs 253 lbs. BMI = 36.4 (obese). Starting lipoproteins (NMR):

LDL particle number 2310 nmol/L
Small LDL: 1893 nmol/L
(1893/2310 = 81.9% of total, a severe small LDL pattern)


Stan is 50 years old, also, 5 ft 10 inches tall, and weighs 148 lbs. BMI = 21.3. Starting lipoproteins:

LDL particle number 1424 nmol/L
Small LDL 1288 nmol/L
(1288/1424 = 90.4% of total, also severe)


Both Ollie and Stan go on the New Track Your Plaque diet and eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, while increasing oils, meats and fish, unlimited raw nuts, and vegetables. They add fish oil and vitamin D and achieve perfect levels of both. Six months later, Ollie has lost 55 lbs, Stan has lost 4 lbs. A second round of lipoproteins:

Ollie:

LDL particle number 1810 nmol/L
Small LDL: 193 nmol/L
(193/1810 = 10.6% of total)


Stan:

LDL particle number 1113 nmol/L
Small LDL 729 nmool/L
(729/1113 = 65.4% of total)


Ollie has reduced, nearly eliminated, small LDL through elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, along with weight loss, fish oil, and vitamin D.

Stan, beginning at a much more favorable weight, reduced both total and small LDL with the same efforts, but retains a substantial proportion (65.4%) of small LDL.

Stan's pattern is what I call "genetic small LDL." Of course, this is a presumptive designation, since we've not identified the specific gene(s) that allow this (e.g., gene for variants of cholesteryl ester transfer protein, hepatic lipase, lipoprotein lipase, and others). But it is such a sharp distinction that I am convinced that people like Stan have this persistent pattern as a genetically-determined trait.

Comments (59) -

  • Onschedule

    2/18/2010 8:25:54 PM |

    Your blog entry appears to have been truncated.

  • Anonymous

    2/18/2010 8:29:46 PM |

    How are Stan's blood sugars?

  • zach

    2/18/2010 8:59:48 PM |

    Sounds like Stan is screwed. Of course, there may be other factors mitigating his lipid pattern because he avoids the neolithic agents. Stan would be more susceptible to heart disease than ollie on the SAD, but not when they both have good diets?

  • Jeff

    2/18/2010 10:23:31 PM |

    Is it possible that a different diet might work for Stan? I don't know what it would be, I just wonder if it's possible.

  • Kurt G. Harris MD

    2/18/2010 10:29:07 PM |

    So Ollie and Stan BOTH show substantial improvement on their LC diets.

    The difference between them may well be due to genetics, but where is the evidence that Stan needs to avoid saturated fat?

    Did you advise Stan to increase sat fat and then watch his sdLDL get worse?

    If they accomplished this with "oils" at the expense of saturated fats (oils are liquid due to the paucity of saturated fats in them), then it looks like they both have a saturated fat deficiency, and one could speculate that Stan is even more deficient than Ollie.

    Swap out the nasty oils for more butter and beef fat and coconut fat and maybe Ollie will have sdLDL of 0 (like I do on 35% of calories from sat fat) and Stan will improve even further.

  • Peter

    2/18/2010 10:44:33 PM |

    Hi Dr Davis,

    You describe a fascinating scenario.

    Ollie has clearly lost weight. He has lost 55 lb in 6 months. That is nearly 10 pounds of "lard-equivalents" each month. This has not evaporated. It is exactly what he has been running his metabolism on. Whatever nuts and vegetables he has eaten can have been nothing in comparison to the 4 times half pound blocks of lard he has "eaten" from his own adipose tissue, every week. Result: Metabolism runs on lard and sdLDL plummet.

    Stan has lost minimal weight so has run his metabolism on  his food alone. If this is low in lard he may well be running his metabolism on vegetable derived carbohydrate and nut derived omega 6 PUFA. It's possible he has NOT been eating 2lb of lard a week in his diet, because obviously this might raise his LDL. So he has NOT used lard to fuel his metabolism, he has used nuts and vegetables when Ollie has used lard from his adipose stores.

    Before I would blame genetics I would get rid of the nuts and unlimited vegetables from Stan's diet and replace them with exactly the same the adipose tissue derived fuel that Ollie was using. If Stan cannot spare it from his butt (he certainly cannot at BMI 21), it's going to have to go on his plate. Two pounds of lard a week.

    Then compare sdLDL values, when you have similar metabolic situations... Until then Stan just has nut and vegetable poisoning showing as sdLDL.

    There do not have to be any genetics involved. There might be, but let's keep it simple for the time being... Ollie is on lard while he is losing weight. Mimic that.

    Peter

  • Sue

    2/18/2010 11:16:15 PM |

    Stan did improve.  Maybe he will improve further, the longer on diet?

  • Anonymous

    2/18/2010 11:52:16 PM |

    I think it's somewhat telling that you advise your patients to eat "oils."  What kind of "oils" are they eating?  Why are your patients eating unlimited nuts?

    Until you get off the Omega-6-loaded "heatlhy" polyunstaturated fats bandwagon, it's hard to take your clinical observations on "fats" very seriously.

  • stcrim

    2/19/2010 12:15:07 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Help me understand the part about not eliminating meats or fats.  First, here is my blood work 15 days apart.

    Total cholesterol 295 - 15 days later 156
    LDL 200 - 15 days later 102
    HDL   46 - 15 days later  32  (have added 1500mg of niacin since then)
    Triglycerides   242 - 15 days later 109
    VLDL  49 - 15 days later 22
    Vitamin D was 28 – 15 days later it’s 56 (using 10,000 of Carlson’s D3)

    FYI my heart scan was 899 (54 year old male)

    I started on all the main nutrients you recommend here plus a few.  I dropped dairy like a hot potato including 6 or more ounces of cheese a day.  During those 15 days I ate only plant based foods (have since added some salmon and egg whites)

    The only oil I use now (sparingly) is olive.  I have a couple of gallons of coconut oil I assumed would have to be tossed sooner or later.

    Guess you could say I became fat paranoid and downright phobic about any saturated fat.

    Am I understanding I could add back Grass-fed beef (omega-3) pastured chicken and Omega-3 whole eggs?  Coconut oil?   If so, is there some safe percentage of a person’s diet to include those proteins/fats?

    By the way, my doctor wouldn’t let me out of his office without a copy of your book.  He’s one in a million as are you!

    Steve

  • Daddy

    2/19/2010 1:05:49 AM |

    Doc, would you say family history could be a clue towards small-particle tendencies?   I have zero family members with heart issues yet I was given pause by your recent post on saturated fats having a disproportionate affect on these genetically challenged folks.  I ask because I eat a ton of rib eyes and bacon.

  • Dr. William Davis

    2/19/2010 3:08:19 AM |

    I have indeed had many people with presumed "genetic small LDL" load their diets with oils and fats with only minor improvement. Loaded with saturated fat, however, and there seems to be deterioration.

    I know this flies in the face of the "saturated fat is great" dogma, but I don't make this stuff up. Just as I don't make up the deterioration of postprandial triglycerides and chylomicron remnant effect when saturated fats are loaded heavily in the diet.

    The persistence of small LDL is also long-term, i.e., it persists for years despite continuing efforts.

  • Dr. William Davis

    2/19/2010 3:09:48 AM |

    Oils = olive oil, flaxseed oil, canola oil (yes, yes, I know), avocado, almond, oils from raw nuts and meats.

    No polyunsaturates here. You've go the wrong guy.

  • Richard A.

    2/19/2010 3:41:23 AM |

    On Doctor's orders, Ollie did indeed lose a massive amount of weight.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYAeYj8-G4w

  • LynP

    2/19/2010 3:41:52 AM |

    @Peter, fascinating...eat lard when slim in attempt to reduce sdLDL.  Doc D thanks for 'splaining 'genetic' tendency to sdLDL & why numbers not reduced on sat fat & only reduced mildly on mono sats.  Great info guys!

  • Kurt G. Harris MD

    2/19/2010 3:52:12 AM |

    "Oils = olive oil, flaxseed oil, canola oil (yes, yes, I know), avocado, almond, oils from raw nuts and meats.

    No polyunsaturates here. You've got the wrong guy."

    But Dr. Davis, those all chock full of PUFAs

    Linseed oil (flax oil) is 71% LA and ALA

    Rapeseed oil (Canola oil) is 33%  LA and ALA

    Almond oil is about 25% PUFA

    Even olive oil can be up to 20% PUFA

    And all of these are mostly Linoleic acid.

    All best left as industrial lubricants and paint additives rather than eaten.

  • LeenaS

    2/19/2010 4:10:32 AM |

    So, you have a fat guy, who has been living on (his own) saturated animal fats, and he has improved a lot.

    Then you have a skinny guy, who has been living on "healthy vegetable fats" with surprisingly much LA in them, and he has not improved that much.

    So, it seems to tell that without saturated fats LDL improvement is much harder in LC, to say it kindly.

    And it sounds as if butter and saturated animal fats would be advantageous for the latter guy, too. Have they ever tried this, under your coucelling?

    With regards,
    LeenaS

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 4:30:07 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

    While body composition certainly isn't a prerequisite for being part of a classic comedy team, I couldn't help but notice that Stan had the makings of a skinny-fat bean pole checking in at 5' 10" and only 148 pounds. Those stats make him sound like a diehard distance runner or a chain smoker.

    While it was clearly just for illustrative purposes, I couldn't help but think that, if "Stan" exercises at all, he must not be exerting himself very much. I'm not advocating that every older gentleman suddenly attempt to impersonate Mr. Olympia, but I have to wonder seeing such a lightweight. That's not to say that I think sufficiently intense exercise would remove the problem that is genetically-based small LDL, but it is enough to make me raise an eyebrow when I see that type of weight for a male listed as 5'10".

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 4:32:12 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Would a take-home point simply be to let the numbers from proper testing be the guide versus what we "think" is right based upon generally-sound dietary advice that may apply to many, but not all, situations?

    Bill Lindvall

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 7:25:27 AM |

    Olive oil is monounsaturated but flaxseed oil, canola oil, avocado oil, almond oil, and oils from raw nuts are all polyunsaturated oils!  Yes, flax oil is omega 3 and canola has more omega 3 than omega 6, but both omega 3 and omega 6 are polyunsaturated.

  • Sue

    2/19/2010 8:10:06 AM |

    Do you know how much saturated fat was eaten?

  • Sue

    2/19/2010 8:28:08 AM |

    Maybe too much mono-unsaturates?

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 11:18:48 AM |

    In another post, you said that blood sugars parallel small LDL.  Do Stan's blood sugars follow the pattern you would predict for someone with a lot of small LDL?

    http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/to-track-small-ldl-track-blood-sugar.html

  • lightcan

    2/19/2010 12:46:27 PM |

    No polyunsaturates?
    Because olive, flax, canola oils, nuts have no polyunsaturated fats?
    I found something different.
    Even avocados have 10 % PUFAs.
    http://curezone.com/foods/fatspercent.asp

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 2:01:52 PM |

    So what about epigenetics? Any way to modify this unknown gene or set of genes?  Pomegranate, etc?

  • Adolfo David

    2/19/2010 2:27:14 PM |

    Please guys, find so other monounsaturated (MUFA) fats with less PUFA..

    I eat almonds, walnuts, extra virgin olive oil as fats and my diet is low in Omega 6, 10% or 20% of Omega 6 PUFA is nothing compared with 70 or 85% of MUFA.

    My experience taking a lot of saturated fats with low carbs is bad, I prefer a diet high in MUFA and low carb.

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 3:18:19 PM |

    Maybe the mental stress of having to worry about what to eat is a factor.
    I do find my self stressing about that often and wonder if just enjoying the food would give me a longer nicer life quality which is in then end what matters.

    Which reminds me somehting I have never read in this blog is about cortisol.
    Have you ever tracked cortisol levels in your patients?

  • ET

    2/19/2010 5:37:36 PM |

    A yea ago, i went off niacin and zocor due to elevated liver enzymes.  Before I restarted niacin, an NMR lipoprotein analysis showed:
    LDL particle number - 2197
    Small LDL-P - 1614
    LDL Particle size - 20.3
    Saturated fat (% of calories) - 21%

    Six months later, after radically increasing the amount of coconut oil I consumed, the results were:
    LDL particle number - 896
    Small LDL-P - 466
    LDL Particle size - 21.6
    Saturated fat (% of calories) - 45%


    Five months after that:
    LDL particle number - 946
    Small LDL-P - 120
    LDL Particle size - 21.1
    Saturated fat (% of calories) - 52%

    Carbohydrate consumption has held fairly steady at 10% of calories.

  • Vladimir

    2/19/2010 5:41:33 PM |

    I agree 100% with these comments.  Not a drop of dogma in them; pure science.  Yes, omega-6 is evil; avoid foods with any of it. No nuts, no seeds. Soy -- dangerous.  Milk -- cavemen didn't drink it and it's possibly dangerous too.  Vegetables -- no, no, goodness no, they're mostly made of dreaded carbohydrates, have little fat, an fiber isn't important!  Saturated fat?  I don't know about you, but I'm too scared to go hog wild on it.

    I know, I know!  Let's not eat at all.  That would drive small LDL to 0!  That would end heart disease -- and everything else -- in a flash.

    Or, just maybe, we could be moderate and sensible.  Take some fish oil to balance whatever omega-6 you get in the olive & canola oils and in nuts.  Eat some, but not too much, animal protein, and mostly fish and lean meats at that, because saturated fat isn't out of the woods yet. (Just because saturated fat's risks have been over-hyped doesn't mean that we should eat all meat all the time, because the evidence is not in yet that saturated fat is a panacea.) Eat some, but not tons, of fruits, because they have antioxidants.  And for goodness sake, eat your vegatables -- lots of them, and all kinds of them -- because your mother was right to make sit at the table until you finished them.

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 5:51:09 PM |

    "I couldn't help but notice that Stan had the makings of a skinny-fat bean pole checking in at 5' 10" and only 148 pounds. Those stats make him sound like a diehard distance runner or a chain smoker."

    I'm 5'10" and under 145 lbs., and I'm neither.

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 6:15:07 PM |

    Kurt G & Lightcan,

    I think when Dr. D said no "No polyunsaturates here. You've got the wrong guy."...he probably meant to say "No (high omega 6) polyunsaturates here.".

    Lastly...I have a question for Dr. Davis:

    Dr. D., is this "genetic small LDL" the same as when you talked about people with ApoE4 in your November 17, 2008 post? If so, do you think it would be helpful to test ApoE before experimenting with diet??

    Thanx!

    John M.

  • zach

    2/19/2010 6:20:59 PM |

    Aren't most nuts full of N-6 PUFA?

  • Rainer

    2/19/2010 6:23:53 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,

    and what is happend with the triclycerides of Stan. Are they high too?

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 7:14:40 PM |

    This is usually when the good doctor stops answering comments.

    Come on, Dr. D, prove me wrong!

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 7:24:49 PM |

    You have really great taste on catch article titles, even when you are not interested in this topic you push to read it

  • Donny

    2/19/2010 7:33:02 PM |

    I'm going to steal a page from T. Colin Campbell here (yechh!)

    Dr Davis, you say that

    "I have indeed had many people with presumed "genetic small LDL" load their diets with oils and fats with only minor improvement. Loaded with saturated fat, however, and there seems to be deterioration."

    Campbell makes the contention that studies showing that low saturated fat intake is beneficial (never mind whether they actually exist or not, just for the sake of argument here) might actually have nothing to do with the type of fat in the diet, and everything to do with the protein which accompanies the fat; most animal fat in our culture comes attached to meat (protein.)

    Adding plant fats and oils to the diet, including nuts, would tend to increase total percentage fat in the diet at the expense of both carbohydrate and protein. Adding animal fat, attached to meat might increase total protein percentage even as it increases total saturated fat.

    Understand, I'm not saying "protein bad," I guess I'm just echoing Peter, really, Stan may be trying to live off of a protein/fat mix that's too rich in protein, entirely aside from the whole issue of saturation.

  • Jeanie Campbell

    2/19/2010 7:57:39 PM |

    Don't tell me no one picked up on the Laurel and Hardy reference! Brilliant!

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 10:16:49 PM |

    Could all you saturated fat mafia people please stop polluting the comments section?

  • Sue

    2/20/2010 12:48:15 AM |

    Maybe recommend Stan use only sat fats and no poly oils and then see if there is a change.

  • Anonymous

    2/20/2010 2:29:41 AM |

    Drs. Davis and Harris,

    Googlemaps indicate you two practice your medicinal arts about 154 miles away from each other.

    May I respectfully suggest a summit meeting in Manitowoc to resolve these matters?

  • Scott Miller

    2/20/2010 3:31:43 AM |

    Flax oil, canola oil, any nut oil (except macadamia nut oil), and all of those nuts -- these are all rich with polyunsaturated fats. I never eat these oils, and my Lp(a) is 2, as last measured a few months ago.

    I always recommend nuts as a very moderate snack because of their high PUFA content.  Macadamia nuts are the ONE exception, with a fatty acid profile similar to olive oil.  Basically, I never recommend any food with a PUFA content greater that 12 percent.  That means canola oil is right out!

    Dr. Davis, perhaps try putting a few of these presumed "genetic small LDL" people on a real low PUFA diet for a while (with more coconut oil and butter--but no nuts during this period) and see if there's improvement.

    I'd bet there is.  Nothing really to lose by giving this a shot.

    If it works to your satisfaction, I'll donate $1000 to your Track-the-Plaque program, or a charity of your choice.

  • Dr. William Davis

    2/20/2010 1:58:33 PM |

    Some other features of the presumptive "genetic small LDL" pattern:

    1) It occurs in the minority of people with small LDL, likely less than 20% of people who start with substantial small LDL.

    2) It is associated with insulin resistance and a tendency towards diabetes

    3) It can occur independent of ApoE genotype. However, if it occurs with ApoE2, it means a very potent carb-sensitivity/diabetic tendency.

    4) The "floor" of 600 nmol/L can be broken. We've had success achieving really low body weight and inconsistently with several supplements, e.g., phosphatidylcholine.

    This area is fascinating, though very poorly explored. "Genetic small LDL" is truly one of the problem areas in gaining control over heart disease risk.

  • Henry North London

    2/20/2010 2:23:56 PM |

    I currently consume coconut oil and butter  I do not use any lard or pufas  I consume a moderate amount of almonds a day ( nine) and some ground almonds as a meal replacement about 10-20gs as a meal about two or three times a week

    I eat avocados maybe twice a week  about two-three

    I have started to show my abdominal muscles after two months where before I looked as if I were pregnant of about a 5 month pregnancy

    I have dropped half a stone  My BP is controlled by a sartan

    I consume a moderate amount of frozen blueberries and raspberries May be about 1 kg of each a month

    or less

    I am living on saturated fat and loving it

    My body works better on it but then I have blood group B

    You have to eat right for your blood type perhaps?

  • Miki

    2/20/2010 3:17:30 PM |

    I would like to add support to Dr. Harris' hypothesis. LDL (no NMR in our country) and TG both rise on low carb, high sat fat diet. No weight problem ever. No high protein no high PUFA for me. Pre-diabetic fasting glucose (110-120). Only complication is I had my gallbladder removed (but my brother didn't). Will increase coconut oil and olive oil on account of double cream. Feel so good on low carb it can't be wrong. Also wonder if under healthy low carb diet LDL and TG have atherogenic effect (My calcium score is low)
    In summary I think Dr. Davis is onto something but I would love to know if LDL status corresponded to increased calcium score in the said patients.

  • Donny

    2/20/2010 3:41:44 PM |

    Choline deficiency can lessen hyperglycemia in rodents with fatty livers. Maybe the inconsistent effects of phosphatidylcholine have something to do with that?

    To the person who mentioned the saturated-fat mafia; we have limited information going in here. Trying to guess at alternate explanations isn't the same as insisting that saturated fat is good in all situations for everybody, no matter what. Proper skepticism demands that we question even the most respected sources.

  • Anonymous

    2/20/2010 8:12:29 PM |

    Dr. Davis, this recent article seems congruent with some of your observations:

    http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/jn.109.115964v1

  • Anonymous

    2/20/2010 8:16:01 PM |

    To all these nutty omega-6 fatphobes - I eat lots of nuts of all sorts, probably 40% of calories, including... peanuts, which I am aware are a legume.  I have no small LDL, undetectable CRP, and lp(a) of 4, high hdl and low homocysteine, HbA1C of 5.2.

  • Anonymous

    2/20/2010 9:06:44 PM |

    Dr. Davis,
    You said "Some other features of the presumptive "genetic small LDL" pattern:

    1) It occurs in the minority of people with small LDL, likely less than 20% of people who start with substantial small LDL."


    So, based on a minority of people with small LDL, you are recommending the same diet to everyone?

  • Dr. William Davis

    2/21/2010 2:28:39 AM |

    Please don't misunderstand: I am NOT saying that saturated fat increases small LDL in most people.

    What I am suggesting is that there is a genetic minority in which saturated fat increases small LDL. These people seem to be the unusually slender, high HDL, low triglycerides, yet diabetes-prone who show apparently intractable small LDL.

    I don't know for a fact why this happens, but I speculate that it is a genetically-determined trait.

    This pattern responds best to a high-protein, high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet. But saturated fat is the exception in this group.

  • Kurt G. Harris MD

    2/21/2010 3:25:37 AM |

    Hello Dr Davis

    I am only persisting in this as the implications might be important.

    I asked, "Did you advise Stan to increase sat fat and then watch his sdLDL get worse?"

    You later said, "Loaded with saturated fat, however, and there seems to be deterioration."  and ..

    "What I am suggesting is that there is a genetic minority in which saturated fat increases small LDL."

    and...

    "This pattern responds best to a high-protein, high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet. But saturated fat is the exception in this group."

    Can I assume when you say "seems to be deterioration" and "there is a suggestion that saturated fat increases small LDL" and "saturated fat is the exception" that this is based on the observation of  serially increased sdLDL NMR values after increasing only saturated fat intake in these 100 or so patients?

    If this is what you have, serial NMRs that show increased sdLDL with increased saturated fat intake, why not say so explicitly?

    Or is it just a reasoned (perhaps correct, perhaps not) guess of what would happen to sdLDL in those 100 or so who have this presumed genetic pattern of persistent sdLDL?

  • Rick

    2/21/2010 3:24:07 PM |

    Dr. Davis wrote:

    "I know this flies in the face of the 'saturated fat is great' dogma, but I don't make this stuff up."


    The way that Peter described the scenario you presented, it seems to support the health benefits of saturated fat rather than deride them

    Ollie is mainlining saturated fat from his gut.  Stan is not.  Ollie's sdLDL drops like a rock.  Stan's doesn't.  

    It seems like if this phenomenon of high sdLDL specifically affects low BMI people, their lack of saturated fat intake, whether through their mouths or from their love handles, could be the culprit.

  • kilton9

    2/24/2010 10:45:35 PM |

    Dr. Harris,

    I'm a fan of your blog, but I can't help but notice that you have completely ignored Dr. Harris's questions in this entry as well as the other recent entry about saturdated fat and LDL.  I find his questions to be pertinent.

  • bovinedefenestration

    2/27/2010 7:26:50 AM |

    I'm actually a little surprised no one's brought up this blog, that indicates polyunsaturate consumption over 4% of calories can be detrimental:

    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/05/eicosanoids-and-ischemic-heart-diseas.html

    Eh. Took me long enough to find. At any rate, 10-20% polyunsaturates, especially if they come from omega-6, is a huge amount for a human.

    Imma going to go away and let you argue now.

  • Henry North London

    2/27/2010 7:07:21 PM |

    Hear Hear throwing cows out of windows...  It blows the polyunsaturates out  of the window

    I have the printout of the Rose et al Paper..

    Corn oil increased the death rate

  • Janet -Mich

    2/28/2010 11:16:20 PM |

    My family has a history of high colestral and plaque build-up in the blood.  Should I stay on my Lipator and stay on a low-carb diet ?  Your article brings up some red flags for me.  Maybe I should talk to my Doctor, but my low-carb friends tell me the doctor will tell me to get off the diet !  I would like some advice.

  • dining table

    7/9/2010 9:52:12 AM |

    How did that happen? Is it possible? Different diet will work to Stan? I am curious about that. I will visit this blog again. I am hoping for an update.

  • Derek Weiss

    8/4/2010 9:49:11 PM |

    Obviously another great blog about eating and living right, but at some point we have to take a step back and live.  Food avoidance and constant stressing about food seems it could negate any benefits of just eating a sensible, well balanced, moderately low carb diet.  

    To me, all these nutrition blogs are fun to read at work. But have you ever noticed the incredible difference in opinion from one to the next?  I take all that with a large grain of salt, pun intended.

    Oh my god, I ate a walnut, surely I will be in the cath lab tomorrow getting my LAD stented;)

    You might not find yourself in the cath lab from eating the random 1/2 cup of oatmeal, but you might find yourself there from stressing about it too much.

    Read all the blogs, use all the information to help guide you.  But don't get in line with the zombies and wander off the deep end too far.

    Just a thought.

  • Liz Stanley

    9/16/2010 8:32:32 PM |

    Here's a stumper. I just had my VAP done and the results surprised me. Some background: I'm not on any medication and never have been. Never had a weight problem, body fat below 20%. I exercise regularly (CrossFit 4x/week). Never smoked. Rarely drink. I eat mostly a primal diet w/plenty of grass-fed/organic/cage-free/wild-caught meat/fish and lots of fresh veggies. Some dairy, but only hormone and antibiotic free. Hardly any grains or processed foods. Low fasting blood sugar (76 as of two weeks ago.) Here are my VAP results:

    Total cholesterol: 200
    HDL : 79
    LDL: 106
    VLDL: 14
    Lp(a): 7
    Triglycerides: 43

    With all that I'd expect to have Pattern A LDL. Yet the VAP test says I have Pattern B! I'm not aware of any history of heart disease on either side of my family. But if it's true that my LDL is small and dense, all I can figure is that it must be genetic. I'm not really sure what to make of it! Any ideas?

  • Anonymous

    9/24/2010 10:26:37 PM |

    Liz Stanley - while my HDL and LDL aren't as good as yours (63 and 185 respectively), I also just received VAP results that stumped me for a similar reason.  I exercise frequently, am not overweight, don't smoke or drink, eat low carb, etc., yet I have pattern B as well.  To add to the confusion, my cCRP is 0.7, which my doctor said was excellent and basically renders my test results a wash as I have zero other risk factors.  I don't know what to make of any of this when you put it all together, and I stumbled upon this post because I'm hoping to find some answers online.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:33:42 PM |

    While body composition certainly isn't a prerequisite for being part of a classic comedy team, I couldn't help but notice that Stan had the makings of a skinny-fat bean pole checking in at 5' 10" and only 148 pounds. Those stats make him sound like a diehard distance runner or a chain smoker.

Loading