Vitamin B5 (Pantothenic Acid) - The Anti-Fat Vitamin?

[ofonorow]

What brand of Pantethine?

Some, but not all of our subjects using the NOW brand at 600 mg have reported loose stools. (I suspect the filler, but the reasons are unknown)

Because of the success of one subject (and to preserve our Pantethine supply) I switched to 10,000 mg of NOW ordinary B5 daily.

[Johnwen]

[tangy]

[tangy]

After one week of taking four capsules a day of Now Pantethine, I haven't experienced any weight loss or increase in libido. I did however notice dryer face, my face has always been oily. I also had side effects like lose motions and stool floaters.

[ofonorow]

Thanks for the report - is that 600 mg (X 4) of Pantethine? Or 2,400 mg daily?

The person in our study who is steadily loosing is on 7,200 mg of Pantethine, restricting calories, and we added carnotine (500 mg)

The skin change is interesting.

[tangy]

Should I up the dosage, I am presently consuming 2400 mg? How does carnotine (500 mg) help with the weight loss?

[ofonorow]

If weight loss is the objective, then yes, all indications are at this point is that you will need to increase the dosage. And you will have to restrict calories and limit carbohydrates. (The good news, according to Leung, is that after you lose the weight, 1 gram per day (versus 10 grams) is the B5 maintenance dose.)

I saw an article by Jeffery Dach http://www.drdach.com/Acne_B5.html (Scroll down to carnitine discussion) where he discussed the Leung findings and provided the argument that adding carnotine would improve the efficiency of burning long chain lipids.

[sjmusic2]

Help me here... massive weight loss is achievable using a low carb, paleo diet and limited exercise alone. Why is the recommendation to mega-dose B5 - does this augment the calorie-restriction and carb-control ? Does B5 help with insulin sensitivity ?

I have been on the paleo spectrum for many years and if I limit my carbs to 50-75g per day with no refined carbs or grains the fat melts away quickly. Maybe that's just me ?

[Montmorency]

OK, I'm in. I received my vitamin B5 order yesterday (2017-08-30) in the form of powder from BulkPowders.com.

I will aim for 10g per day. I'll probably end up putting it in gelatin capsules like I take most of my supplements, but for now I'm dissolving it in water. It's not the most delicious taste, but it's not the worst supplement I've tasted (that might be nicotinic acid, followed by ascorbic acid... ).

I should say that I've been on a low-carb, high-fat, moderate protein diet since January of this year, and for most of that time, have been aiming for the ketogenic range of the LCHF "spectrum". I lost slowly but steadily for a couple or three months, but I've had several stalls since, the current one probably for around 2 months. I've been around 200 lbs +/- 5 lb for that time.

My target weight is probably around 154-161 lb (11 to 11.5 stone in the usual UK parlance) which is probably still a bit high going by the usual charts for my height, but I doubt if I'd be comfortable at much less.

My aim is of course good health, as well as weight-loss, and previous experience showed that LCHF improved my blood lipids and probably reversed pre-diabetes. However, between about 2010 and 2016 I fell off the LCHF wagon, and regained. Come 2017 I felt I had to try again, and then discovered the "keto" aspect of LCHF.

I've been following the keto "experts" such as Jason Fong, Steve Phinney, Ted Naiman and others, and follow the "2 Keto Dudes" podcast and forum. I'd think the keto "experts" would probably disagree with some of the science behind the pantothenic acid / pantethine idea, but I'm happy to give it a try. One area where I think it will help is in fasting. I've tried 24H and one 48H fast, and I think they help, but I don't find them easy. I do do intermediate fasting, and postpone breakfast as long as possible, or more likely skip it, and can usually manage on 1 meal per day without snacking.
But lately, I've been allowing myself "cheats" (from LCHF) and I think that's the main reason for the stalling.

So it will be interesting to see if B5 helps me stop "cheating" and helps break the stall.
However, the main problem with any form of dieting is, I find, social / family pressures.

[ofonorow]

Montgomery, anxious to hear your future reports as you seem to be an expert on Ketosis. The beauty of the Leung approach is NO KETOSIS, and if you enter it, then Leung says you may have to go up to 20 grams of B5 daily. I am not sure what "ketogenic range of the LCHF spectrum" means, but I think it may become moot with B5

Help me here... massive weight loss is achievable using a low carb, paleo diet and limited exercise alone. Why is the recommendation to mega-dose B5 - does this augment the calorie-restriction and carb-control ? Does B5 help with insulin sensitivity ?

I have been on the paleo spectrum for many years and if I limit my carbs to 50-75g per day with no refined carbs or grains the fat melts away quickly. Maybe that's just me ?

You do sound lucky sjmusic2. And your statement is true - assuming you have enough B5 to form coenzyme A that can then metabolize the food that you do eat. Leung wondered why when most people switch to fat burning, which should be more efficient, we usually go into the ketosis mode which wastes energy. His theory is that all the food we eat in modern society effectively creates a conezyme A deficiency. The vitamin needed to form coenzyme A is B5 (or the more complete Pantethine.) The beauty is efficient fat burning, lack of hunger, lack of ketosis, and the slow loss of about 2 lbs per week on a diet of 1000 calories daily.

But this is a side effect of vitamin B5/Coenzyme A (as is curing acne in 2-3 weeks). This information was sent to me by Dr. Levy in the hope that it would help restart my adrenal function. The reason acne starts at puberty, according to Leung's theory, is because as the adrenals begin making hormones, coenzyme A is used up in greater quantities.

[sjmusic2]

You do sound lucky sjmusic2. And your statement is true - assuming you have enough B5 to form coenzyme A that can then metabolize the food that you do eat. Leung wondered why when most people switch to fat burning, which should be more efficient, we usually go into the ketosis mode which wastes energy. His theory is that all the food we eat in modern society effectively creates a conezyme A deficiency. The vitamin needed to form coenzyme A is B5 (or the more complete Pantethine.) The beauty is efficient fat burning, lack of hunger, lack of ketosis, and the slow loss of about 2 lbs per week on a diet of 1000 calories daily.

But this is a side effect of vitamin B5/Coenzyme A (as is curing acne in 2-3 weeks). This information was sent to me by Dr. Levy in the hope that it would help restart my adrenal function. The reason acne starts at puberty, according to Leung's theory, is because as the adrenals begin making hormones, coenzyme A is used up in greater quantities.

But wouldn't any typical adult experience significant weight loss on only 1000 calories per day ? Are you saying that this is not the case, or maybe you are saying that B5 causes fat-loss rather than protein-loss ???

Weight loss is still fundamentally linked to insulin and the body's sensitivity thereof. I guess if those 1000 calories were all from white sugar, ie. refined carbs, then you will not lose as much weight as if it were vegetables, good fat and protein. Maybe the paleo diet delivers sufficient B5 to facilitate the dramatic weigh-loss experienced by most, if not all who stay committed to it over an extended period of time. I have never seen anyone fail to drop weight (fat) when they start paleo and continue for at least 30 days, granted my sample group is limited.

But equally as important as nutrition, are sleep and exercise (HIIT and strength), though now I'm starting to get off-topic !

[ofonorow]

But wouldn't any typical adult experience significant weight loss on only 1000 calories per day ? Are you saying that this is not the case, or maybe you are saying that B5 causes fat-loss rather than protein-loss ???

The difference is that most people would go into ketosis - an "energy wasting" state. Not only is ketosis avoided, but so is hunger. (You have to read Leung's paper, or the Jeffrey Dach article for the details. Leung claims that ketosis is the reason most diets fail - and people gain the weight back.

Weight loss is still fundamentally linked to insulin and the body's sensitivity thereof.

But, only when carbs are involved, right?. I wish I understood exactly how the body differentiates between a high carb meal and a high fat/protein meal, but it seems to.

I guess if those 1000 calories were all from white sugar, ie. refined carbs, then you will not lose as much weight as if it were vegetables, good fat and protein.

Just watched a sales video for a fat-loss program which claims this isn't true. Calories are all that matters - not the nutrients in the foods. Cites an experiment.

Maybe the paleo diet delivers sufficient B5 to facilitate the dramatic weigh-loss experienced by most, if not all who stay committed to it over an extended period of time. I have never seen anyone fail to drop weight (fat) when they start paleo and continue for at least 30 days, granted my sample group is limited.

I think you are correct, that with limited food intake in general, there is "enough" B5 which is ubiquitous in most foods. Just not enough to cover how much food we in modern civilization consume.

But equally as important as nutrition, are sleep and exercise (HIIT and strength), though now I'm starting to get off-topic !

Maybe - this has turned into a long topic, so you may have missed much of the lead in. Again, consistent slow weight loss - without hunger and/or ketosis. Overcoming the reason most diets fail.

[Montmorency]

[quote="ofonorow"]Montgomery, anxious to hear your future reports as you seem to be an expert on Ketosis. The beauty of the Leung approach is NO KETOSIS, and if you enter it, then Leung says you may have to go up to 20 grams of B5 daily. I am not sure what "ketogenic range of the LCHF spectrum" means, but I think it may become moot with B5


Thanks Owen, but I don't claim to be an expert. I have done a fair amount of reading around the subject, although I need to refresh my memory, perhaps from Steve Phinney's books that I have. He is an expert especially in ketogenic diets for athletes, especially racing cyclists. There appears to be a limit to the rate at which we can burn our own body fat, although I think he says that well-trained athletes on well-formulated ketogenic diets can burn it at a more rapid rate than the general population.

By "ketogenic range of the LCHF spectrum" I just meant keeping carbs as low as possible, but also keeping protein as low as possible as well. This was an insight I got back in early January (primarily from Jimmy Moore, actually). Figures vary, but people like Phinney usually say you need about 0.5g of protein for every kg of lean body mass. (Ron Rosedale is someone who would argue for a lower amount). The idea is that if we overdo the protein, i.e. take in more than we need for repair/rebuilding muscle, then the excess will be converted to glucose, and it will be similar to taking in excess carbs. When I learned about this, which I was unaware of during my previous attempts at LCHF, I realised that this was (possibly) why I'd never managed to lose as much weight as I'd really wanted, and why it came off so slowly.

I got myself a blood ketone meter, and started measuring my blood ketones, but not all that often as the strips are pricier than regular glucose strips. I did usually get to the levels of blood ketones that the ketogenic "experts" usually recommend, although I didn't agonise over it too much. Partly because of the cost, and the fact that I don't like pricking my fingers all the time, I haven't done it for ages now. But perhaps I ought to, at least now and again, as part of this experiment.

As you may have gathered, there seems to be a major philosophical difference between proponents of ketogenic diets and Dr Leung's ideas: the former regard ketosis as a good thing, and would not recognise the description of ketosis as being "wasteful".

But it might depend on how you define ketosis. Do you mean ketones appearing in the urine? Or ketones appearing in the blood? If the former, then yes, pehaps they are "wasted". But those in the blood are eligible to be transported to the muscles and organs, and burned as fuel.

One reason why I never agonised too much about my blood levels of ketones was the thinking that it wasn't so much the ketones that were important, but whether or not you were "fat-adapted", i.e. your body hard learned to burn fat for fuel rather than just glucose. As I understood it, ketones were a by-product of fat metabolism, but were also themselves candidates for burning as fuel, so the body got two bites at the cherry, so to speak. I've never bothered with urine ketone strips, since I kept reading that they were not reliable, and that the thing to do was measure blood ketones. But perhaps for the purposes of this experiment, I should occasionally also measure urine ketones, to see if I am "wasting" them.

Anyway, I routinely measure bodyweight (daily), and from time to time waist size, and you are welcome to the figures in due course,, together with B5 dosages. I will say I haven't felt too hungry today, on not all that much food (although I don't bother counting calories I'm afraid). And I was 1 lb down on yesterday this morning, but day-to-day fluctuations aren't that significant, I don't think.

[sjmusic2]

The difference is that most people would go into ketosis - an "energy wasting" state. Not only is ketosis avoided, but so is hunger. (You have to read Leung's paper, or the Jeffrey Dach article for the details. Leung claims that ketosis is the reason most diets fail - and people gain the weight back.

As long as you consume >50g of good carbs you typically will not go into ketosis and you should still lose significant weight at those levels. There are a number of instances where ketosis has been demonstrated to be beneficial, eg. epilepsy, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, atherosclerosis, age-related memory loss, even metabolic syndrome/detox..."Mitochondrial levels of the endogenous antioxidant glutathione increase on a ketogenic diet; this is likely a major reason for many of its beneficial effects." Also the actions of BHB are significant. That said, I think ketosis should be used as a short-term tool and not a long-term solution.

But, only when carbs are involved, right?. I wish I understood exactly how the body differentiates between a high carb meal and a high fat/protein meal, but it seems to.

The body possesses multiple pathways to produce glucose (gluconeogenesis controlled by glucagon) from fats and proteins. Insulin deals with glucose once it is in the bloodstream, fills muscle and liver with glycogen first then stores excess as fat. It is antagonistic with glucagon. The typical SAD consumes large quantities of carbs and over time muscles and the liver will become less sensitive to insulin signalling and thus require more insulin secretion to achieve the desired effect and the circle repeats. This ultimately results in the pancreatic fatigue and type-2 diabetes when it can no longer produce sufficient insulin to control the now potentially toxic levels of glucose - ironically insulin also becomes toxic at high levels too. Insulin resistance also blocks amino acids from entering cells and the liver from converting thyroid hormone T4 to T3. Some people are more genetically disposed to insulin resistance then others.

Just watched a sales video for a fat-loss program which claims this isn't true. Calories are all that matters - not the nutrients in the foods. Cites an experiment.

I find it hard to believe that continued over consumption of refined carbs will lead to anything other than pancreatic failure and possibly diabetes unless high exercise levels are involved as they will mitigate some of the insulin resistance caused by the nutritional imbalance.

[ofonorow]